If the story of Twitter's former overlords is about their prejudices and power trips, the question now is what Elon Musk will do with the powerful tools they created.
The least curious people in the country right now are the credentialed news media. How disgustingly ironic that newspapers with highfalutin mottos like “Democracy Dies in Darkness” and ”All the News That’s Fit to Print” are refusing to cover arguably the biggest story of the year in even the briefest of ways. It’s testament to the bizarre situation we now find ourselves, in which the biggest advocates of state and corporate censorship are media corporations and their employees. Journalists are among the leading proponents for political censorship. That is surreal.
That's basically what CNN did today. They finally covered it so they could discredit it. According to Oliver Darcy, "Musk selected a handful of journalists unaffiliated with major credible news organizations."
Bari Weiss cannot bring herself to fully support Musk. I understand that one should always be skeptical, but she is already warning us that he too will inevitably become another power-grabbing totalitarian as is the woke left is today. She is already worrying that he will be like the totalitarian Bolsheviks who took out the totalitarian Csar.
We should watch Musk carefully, but the fact that he allows people like Weiss and Taibbi, who are ONLY partially red-pilled, speaks volumes to me.
I question his ties to China, but I also see he has a little George Washington in him. It appears he doesn't need to become the king. I hope Bari actually DOES support those few, incredibly brave people who actually do fight the current overwhelmingly powerful totalitarian regime.
I was never a Musk fan, but I do respect what he has done with Twitter. Until last week, I had no idea how convinced our betters were that all speech should be censored by ... people like them ... to protect us clods from Wrongthink.
Now they're turning on Musk and trying to make us believe we should hate him because he is just plain evil. And some people seem to be buying this hooey.
That's how they roll. Attack and label and name call but never ever discuss issues and certainly not facts that you do not like and cannot counter. In Musk, they have met their match. They cannot call him stupid or against science or anti-intellectual. That's why they have made him public enemy No. 1
Yes, and now prominent Democratic politicians and liberal influencers are falsely claiming that "hate speech" has skyrocketed with Musk at the helm of Twitter. It's a two-pronged approach: They're trying to 1) manufacture the need for the government to step in and increase its control of speech on the platform now that it’s lost its informal channels to do that, and 2) make the platform toxic to advertisers and thus force the company into bankruptcy.
It's sad that Democrats/mainstream media can just lie all they want and not be help accountable. I listen to some of my friends say things I cannot believe, but I know who they are listening to. As a Christian, many people believe anything I believe is hate speach.
One family member and I have a common interest in spaceflight and science in general. This family member also happens to be an avid Democrat Activist. The cause does not really matter as long as there is a good band and swag. Back in the day she was so proud of having ridden next to Elon Musk on a commercial flight (when SpaceX was nearly bankrupt).
Today Musk is living in her head 24/7/365, just a floor below Trump. And I'm treated like a bootlicker. Makes for great family gatherings.
I had an opinion. Besides rockets and electric cars, which are inherently futuristic and cool, I saw him on Saturday Night Live and he was adorable. More important, he came right out and said he had Asperger's, which was brave.
However, I also saw who he had a child with and what they named him, so I wasn't completely enamored. Yikes. He calls the kid X now, so that's fine.
Overall though, I'm a fan. He's incredibly brilliant, enigmatic, funny and he talks to ordinary people on Twitter.
I wonder what they call X for short. I mean X is as short a name as possible. Oh, well. The concerns of billionaires with dozens of children is out of my paygrade.
The Boring Company: this appears to be an exercise in dangerous lunacy 100% likely to get folk killed.
Tesla: Electric cars are several times more expensive and several times more environmentally dubious than the IC engine variety.
These two are balanced somewhat in that he is taking advantage of stupid people with more money than sense. That they are in the vast majority stupid Americans is even more pleasing to me.
Space X: More power to Elon's elbow.
My conclusions here are pre-Covid and probably pre-Trump as 45.
Taking over Twitter might cancel out a lot of Musk's negatives; but he isn't The Messiah.
Hey man, we are the unwashed masses. Being ignorant, uneducated rabble we need some glassy eyed, drool on her/his chin, left wing fanatic to interpret what is real and what is not.
We are expected to be grateful and not question their noble, altruistic endeavors. Don't think of it as censorship but as enlightenment. Halleluiah!
It really pisses me off that some self righteous dip shit makes a decision on what I can or cannot read. It is my, MY RIGHT to make up my own mind on what is valid or not valid. I have an excellent education and have lived a long life full of mistakes and full of triumphs. I don't need some 20 something who doesn't know his/her ass from a hole in the ground telling me what or how to think Assholes!
What I don't get is why so many Democrats are fighting against Musk. Democrats once were the ones who fought for free speech. They once hated big business but are now defending one of the most despicable corporate-government alliances we have ever witnessed. Covering up election interference.
What happened to the liberals I once knew? Are they for anything, or just against everything?
I dunno. It's not free speech if people are free to harass and denigrate me at will. Free speech requires some rules of engagement but as free markets require effective regulation
I don't know your experience and don't want to offend you personally. There always have been bullies whose tactics in arguments have been to try to make the issues personal, which is a cheap excuse for lazy logic. Enacting "rules of engagement" would only give such creeps more attention when, in fact, honest people with different views engage with others in respectful discussions. I have been wrong at least twice in my life and have apologized and befriended former antagonists in longer discussions. This is how we grow.
Totally agree. But there are limits, is all. If someone routinely and credibly threatens me with violence, for example, the answer is not necessarily to just stiffen my resolve. It is ludicrous to argue that tolerating such behavior is ok because of free speech which such behavior clearly chills the speech of its victims
I think free speech helps us to identify the creeps. They basically self-identify. Then you can go about the conversation with the normal folks and ignore the creeps.
The cream rises to the top and the dregs fall to a warm place.
You can censor those who "harass and denigrate me at will" by not hanging out with them or reading anything they say. If you don't do that, you are at fault.
I practice what I preach. I never engage R T or comprof. I find comprof mean, vicious and demeaning. In short, a jerk. I am censoring him, changing the channel.
You know what you can do? Not read it; switch your 'phone/pc/laptop off; click away to something more to your liking. Someone typing that I'm a fucking retard has zilch; zero; double-nought; blank; fuck-all effect on my real-life health or well being.
Anyone who dares to vary from the hard left, woke, socialist doctrine is considered a conservative. Anyone who does not fall in line with these glassy eyed, goose stepping tyrants is a conservative. Think comprof and R T.
I am convinced that this is just the first step toward a CCP type society. Can you imagine comprof or R T as concentration camp commandants?
If you think this is far fetched, just remember the short lived Biden misinformation board. It was the first sept in the direction of a Goebbels like propaganda machine. Fortunately it was run by a far left idiot.
Lol....why do you keep invoking my name, Lonesome Polecat - yet you never engage me?
Actually, I've done nothing to illustrate being "hard left," "socialist" or "woke" other than....well.....
1. Not being a Trump fan.
2. Not believing there is a white genocide currently occurring or that white kids are in school being screamed at every day by colored folks about how they're "oppressors."
3. Not believing 0.001% of the U.S. population are destroying America.
4. Not being a member of the Derek Chauvin fan club.
5. Not believing gays/lesbians are pedophiles.
If that makes me "woke" in your eyes....well, that says more about you than it does me.
“Conservative” in this sense is used as a smear; it serves as a notice to readers that those branded accordingly should be ignored and everything they say discredited.
Yeah. Somebody either here or at Taibbi echoed that. His claim was that Bari Weiss is a conservative. How do we know? Because she worked for that bastion of conservatism the NYT. 😳
🤣🤣🤣 Bari is less delusional than in days gone by but the lift still doesn't reach the penthouse and several slates still need replacing. Several weeks trawling Twitter's back catalogue might result in a complete return to sanity; but I won't get my hopes up!
Came out in huge support of Joe Rogan when he went through his issue with all his "N*gger episodes" on Spotify. Anyone who thought those episodes were a bit distasteful, she called "leftist mobs" and complained about "cancel culture." Even went after Spotify after they and Rogan mutually agreed to remove all the "N*gger episodes."
Show one instance of Bari Weiss saying the IDF is right 100% of the time. Just because she doesn't buy the bullshit "zionist colonialist oppressor" narrative of the PLO and the DNC doesn't mean she excuses bad action by Israel over time.
Show me one instance when Bari doesn't go after someone for criticizing the IDF. Bari has described herself as a Zionist - which is cool - just don't be a disingenuous hypocrite about it.
Hell.....she went after the author Alice Walker when she had a new book that came out not to long ago.
Or they insert innuendo to sew doubt. I hope I'm wrong but one of the lines in Bari's piece troubles me.
“What does it mean when the owner of Twitter tweets that his pronouns are “Prosecute/Fauci”? Doesn’t that take us back to where we were before?”
Is that a rhetorical smear of a rival platform? Regardless, it's my hope that Musk’s ostensible pronouns take us is to a place that's been lost to us for too long. For over two years America was crushed under the edicts trumpeted by Fauci, amplified by his media toadies and protected by the censorship industrial complex. I hope they lead us to accountability and justice.
I agree on the Fauci comment. I assume it was one of two things. Either she was attempting to establish bona fides with the anti-Musk and/or pro-Fauci crowd (and if that was the best she could do anti-Musk that is not much) or she buys the Fauci is the science narrative.
Bari should save questions of Musk’s twitter stewardship for another day. He’s taken on great personal and financial risk by poking the deep state bear. She should be thrilled that he trusted her with the files. Getting them out to a broader audience should be her paramount concern. It's likely that her stewardship of The Free Press will in no small part be judged accordingly.
I am not part of any mob so speak only for myself but functioning democracies function best without fear of disclosure. For that reason I want an investigation of the entire covid establishment. I would not limit that to "the Science", er I mean Dr. Fauci, but as the head of it I think he would be the focus. His emails that have already come to light are very informative and I will hazard a guess that an ego that size has left a pretty amazing paper trail. Then there are his many public statements and testimonies. What I really want to know is his involvement, directly or indirectly, in gain of function research, whether at the Wuhan lab or elsewhere. Well that and his economic benefits from.his long-time "public service". I hesitate to call a government job "public service" when the "servant" becomes very wealthy as a result thereof. Lastly, without an investigation we will never know if he saved lives or not, much less how many. What we do know is that the collateral consequences of his actions have been devastating for our nation. I cannot help but think that without an undrrstanding of where the virus came from we will never know what exactly it is or how it works and he actively impeded that determination when it would have mattered the most. If he is as up front as he claims he should have nothing to fear by an examination of his actions.
Sure those are reasonable things to ask about. He makes $400k/yr and is 80. If he has been prudent with his investments at all, he should be pretty well off.
Even if I quit working tomorrow, I should be as wealthy as him if I live that long.
Having said that, the whole political establishment goes to DC middle class and leaves wealthy. They should all be investigated.
I agree with your last sentence. It is my understanding that when "the Science" entered public service the law was that if a public servant while in the employ of the government obtained a patent the patent did not belong to the individual. During "the Science" 's lo-o-o-ng tenure that law changed and he now holds many patents. I think that is likely the source of his wealth which is considerable. ($400,000 is chump change for an urbanite with 3 daughters. I assume his wife, likewise a government bureaucrat had a nice salary as well so doubt that he supported her financially). But he developed those patents in government labs paid for by taxpayers. For him to grow rich thereby is IMO improper. He also yielded enormous power as evidenced by Covid, but prior to that as well. If it is true that he indirectly funded gain-of-function research he should be under a jail somewhere.
All my adult life I'd been a subscriber to the NY Times-- I even worked there during grad school and my daughter had a summer internship there a couple of years ago. I've always had a deep respect for the newspaper. However, I've started to scrutinize what is being written about and what is being left out of the news at the Times. I've also found that some facts that they use are often taken out of context to back up a story-- cherry picking. This has been so disappointing to me that yesterday I cancelled my subscription.
I do like a few of the opinion writers and other parts, as well, but it was my tiny way of taking a stand. At this point, I don't want any sway from the left or right-- I just want the facts so I can make up my own mind.
I cancelled my subscription a couple of weeks ago too. I’d been hesitant to do so because I do enjoy some of their pieces and I like their games, but it simply did not feel right to continue to contribute to them financially.
For example: Saying that The IRS was targeting poor people because more low income people's tax returns were audited than those of wealthy people. True-- but the IRS was not "targeting." It was simply that one can audit someone who has little money faster than those with millions; hence, auditors would be able to do more audits for lower income folks while millionaires might take longer and fewer could be done in the same amount of time. Cherry picking. I know many media outlets (left and right) do the same thing, not just the Times. But-- at this point, I just want straight, unaltered facts so I can make up my own mind.
Hmm....well sounds like you've already made up you mind. Because you've provided an excellent justification/spin for why lower-income people are audited 5x more than wealthier people.
Also, the use of "targeting" (i.e. what you're complaining about) is not cherry picking - it's called "framing" - using rhetoric/language to encourage a particular interpretation. When you agreed that the story was "True," then it becomes a framing issue.
To suggest so is to lie. Prevaricate. Make Shit Up. A journalist (and a so-called "comprof" assuming short for communications professor) should never do such things.
Being audited at 5x the rate than wealthy people. So, the "truth is the truth." You just don't like the language choice used to describe that truth.
"To suggest so is to lie"......yeah, you might REALLY, REALLY want to think about that.....especially considering the media you probably consume.
Lol. Honestly, I think you're just upset that someone pointed out that poor people were getting the short end of the stick, being treated differently, etc. That right there, is the truth.
In fact, I did write to the Times and they tried to justify it by pointing to the one fact (more poor people are audited) but I responded in saying that "look at the context to where this is taken. It suggests something the opposite of "targeting." For two people from the Times to respond means they took it seriously-- I'm glad about that. I've taught research skills at USC so I am hyper critical of publications that "cherry pick" as I am with my students who do the same. It's enough that it's done by politicians but respected newspapers should be above that (should).
Yeah I mean it’s a bad sign that the evidence proving Joe Biden is owned by Chinese Communists is derisively referred to as “Hunter’s Laptop”.
As if it matters whose laptop the evidence is on. What if we found OJ’s bloody glove in his neighbor Susan’s yard? Would we call it “Susan’s Yard” or would we just say that OJ killed his wife?
It's annoying that all the reporting about Hunter Biden's laptop has focused almost exclusively on the prurient content on it and on Twitter's fumblling response in the teeth of the election. There has been pretty much nothing about the only story that should matter - which is whether Joe Biden was implicit i some sort of crime. The fact that nothing definitive has come out about this speaks volumes
Incidents of Jury Nullification are relatively rare - and usually come about for three reasons, bad law without the consent of the governed, and/or bigotry against the accused/accuser.
Assuming you don't believe that prohibition of murder is a bad law without the consent of the people of California...
It's also important to keep track of coverage at Wikipedia whose editors you can watch on the history page of "The Twitter Files." They often delete citations to any stories not in corporate media.
I wrote about that here:
New Tsars like the Old Tsars
The "Twitter Files" - Landmark Moment in the Annals of Speech.
“All the news that’s fit to print” has never been the modus operandi of the New York Times. From the NYT’s support of National Socialism in the 1930s to today’s support for woke fascism, the NY Times’ M.O. has always been “All the news that fits, we print”.
Clever but not really true. They don't print anything that doesn't further their agenda. Ignoring a story is often more effective than trying to discredit it.
Media needs money to survive and to make money they need to satisfy their base. All media organizations peddle to their base, nothing new, not sure why this is so surprising.
What I don't understand is a news outlet is a for profit entity. The more readers the greater the profit. If a news outlet panders to only one side of the political spectrum, they lose about 40% of their readers or in CNN's case viewers. It is beyond explanation how Fox thrives. Maybe it is because even the loon left wants to hear and see another view of the world.
What I am saying, you don't piss off half the population with partisan BS and thrive. These big news outlets are supposed to be run by smart people but they sure don't follow a capitalist paradigm.
Fox thrives for the same reason that LibsOfTikTok is so popular: people these days are always eager to watch their enemies make fools of themselves. It helps reinforce their bubble.
It's not surprising that a media company would peddle to its base. What is surprising is that media companies remain devoted to peddling a message that a large chunk of their supposed base is rejecting, based on their cratering ratings. Maybe they are not solely driven by a profit motive?
No,no,no! The New York Times has never been “All the news that’s fit to print”. From it’s support of Hitler’s National Socialists in the 1930s to the woke fascists of today, the NYT’s modus operandi has always been “All the news that fits, we print”.
However, how do we get over the hurdle that a private company has the right to do what they want to do as far as content moderation, etc. Twitter is FiLLEd WiTH LibRULs who don't like Trump!
Ok....get your conservative buddies together, move to Silicon Valley, raise money from VCs and start your own platform.
Social media has become so ubiquitous among consumers/public that people actually think they have a Constitutional Right to have a Twitter account or have their tweet trend.
At the end of the day, all ultimate decisions were made by Twitter, not the government.
Okay, a cake maker refuses to create a special cake because doing so breaks the baker's religious convictions. So, Leftists, get a group of fellow Leftists and start your own cake-bakery. Both sides can play the role of useless idiot, that's easy. However, when it comes to 1st amendment rights, there's no room for negotiations-more speech is always better than less speech. Of course unpopular speech needs protecting, not popular speech. Lastly, the evidence is piling on top of evidence: the government said "jump" and social media said "how high?"
Sam, how do you force a corporate entity like Twitter or Facebook to publish your tweet or post? If they suspend your account what do you do? Sue them? You’ll be laughed out of court.
You can’t force a private concern to protect your First Amendment rights - because it is within their First Amendment right to treat its content as they see fit.
And if they accede to an agency of the gov’t, something they were not obligated to do, that is their right too.
THIS is what happens we people grow up with a cell phone permanently attached to their hand. A social media platform becomes "the public square," people are pulling off "digital coups" and I have a Constitutional Right to not only HAVE a Twitter account, but my tweets better TREND TOO, DAMMIT!
It's almost like.....dare I say it?.....they all want "digital participation trophies."
Yep, that's EXACTLY what you should do. Go to another bakery, start your own, etc.
The invisible hand of the free market solves all, right? That's what Conservatives and St. Reagan told us.
See this is what happens when people grow up inundated/addicted to social media, they call a platform that only about 23% of Americans use "the public square" and they legitimately believe they have a Constitutional Right to a Twitter account and to have their tweets trend, if not it's a "1st amendment rights" issue.
Rightest and leftist both tried to influence Twitter, sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they didn't.
Who cares if the media said "How high?" That is not "evidence," of anything dude. It's evidence of a private company making a decision on what they want to do. The can jump high, low, sideways, whatever. Ultimately, Twitter makes all the decisions.
Now, personally I would like to see ZERO content moderation. ALL SPEECH allowed. Every Fuentes, every Black Black Nationalists, every Anti-Semite, deranged lunatic, conspiracy theorists, deep fake videos, false emergency warnings, etc. - that way everyone can finally shut up once and for all about Twitter.
Your knowledge level of important events is hopelessly low, it’s no wonder your ability to arrive at a reasonable conclusion failed. James Baker, the fired former chief attorney for the FBI/DOJ during the Russia hoax, the Mueller Witch-hunt, & impeachments 1 and 2, was days ago vetting Twitter Files, and is suspected to have prevented documents unhelpful to Democrats before Musk showed the corrupt cop the door. Government is prohibited from abridging the Rights provided to Americans by the Constitution. That prohibition includes using 3rd parties as a workaround to avoid violating the law. The evidence of Democratic Party criminality its shocking anyone with a sense of decency would continue supporting the Dems. Dumb & Democrats are synonymous.
Your knowledge level, across the board, is hopelessly low.
Sigh....once again....Twitter is not required to report/allow anything.....or required to NOT report/allow anything.
SO WHAT if if Twitter hired James Baker? - THE. ARE. A. PRIVATE. COMPANY. THEY. CAN. HIRE. WHO. THEY. WANT.
Was James Baker currently still employed by the U.S. Government, or acting as chief attorney for the FBI/DOJ while he was vetting the TwItTer FiLes ? Yes or No?
You do not have a Constitutional Right to a Twitter account or to have your tweet trend. You also do not have a 1A right to a digital participation trophy.
Twitter can "collude" with WHOMEVER THEY WANT. UNDERSTAND? Same goes for Musk and "New" Twitter. Hell, if Musk wants to sell it to Vladamir Putin, Kim Jong-un or Jair Bolsanaro, he can.
So, you can screech and tail-bite all you want. Those are simply the facts.
Once a member of the IC always a member of the IC. Can you prove James Baker was not working for the Democratic Party-dominated federal government? Why anyone with a brain would cheer for this kind of 3rd-world banana republic government corruption is beyond gross. Don't you know people who treat political opponents with such disdain will never hesitate to turn against the useful idiots, that's you, who remain complicit with these crimes. This is no longer a Right vs Left, Blue vs Red, or Dem vs Rep. This fight is us versus them. Which side are you on? Traitor.
That is why anti-trust legislation exists. When a company becomes so dominant that it can no longer be subjected to the normalizing influence of competition, and it uses that dominance for nefarious ends, then the marketplace has failed and it is now a matter for the courts.
Hence Standard Oil and AT&T were both broken up to provide breathing space for competitors. Clearly the old Twitter was just such a monopoly and it’s nefarious acts included denying access to the public square to anyone who didn’t serve the interests of their overlords, the Democratic Party and the pharmaceutical industry. The new Twitter remains dominant, but hopefully nefarious and monopolistic behaviour are abominations of the past.
Uh...there are lots of other social media platforms out there.
See, when someone gets so addicted/surrounded by social media, they wind up calling Twitter "the public square" and a private company making choices "nefarious acts" or creating concepts like "digital coup."
And comparing Standard Oil & AT&T, companies that provide services that are absolutely vital to an economy/country, to a social media platform where people post memes and talk about "Milf Manor," is probably not the strongest choice.
The bottom line of your argument, once you sweep away all the bad historical analogies and political agita, is pretty simple and clear: You think people have a Constitutional Right right to a Twitter account and for their Tweets to trend.
Personally, I hope there is ZERO content moderation - of ANYTHING. ALL SPEECH allowed. So everyone can finally stop talking about Twitter.
I think we may be in violent agreement, except that doxxing individuals and their families is a precursor to violence against those with whom you disagree. There is a sweet spot between giving a megaphone to everyone, including criminals, and the kind of ideological censorship that was the standard for the old Twitter. My hope is that Elon Musk is finding that sweet spot.
Sure, "violent agreement" works, except I want doxxing allowed, too.
He's banning journalists. Punk ass Elon also banned someone that was tracking his private plane. Why?!!
Shouldn't be out flying in public, Elon!!
No. Uh-uh. I don't want to hear from "Doxxers" about how their 1A rights are being violated because they're not on Twitter or complaining that their tweets about someone's kids school location and class schedule isn't trending.
There is only one sweet spot: ZERO CONTENT MODERATION/EVERYTHING ALLOWED!
So hopefully, everyone can finally break free of the totalitarian oppression of a phone app and shut the f*ck up about Twitter.
Would you be comfortable if I presented your home address, your employer, your wife's name and occupation, children's names and ages, their schools, your travel schedule... all on Twitter, along with an aggressive and critical rant? Maybe you have less to lose, and that's why you're comfortable with unlimited doxxing. A town square is where people can attack the message, not the messenger.
Democrats have been captured by extreme Leftists who possess a level of contempt for our founding principals, who disregard the rule of law when they disagree with the law in question, and who are fully invested in the big government, all-powerful, nanny state.
Brad, why is this the 'biggest story of the year'?
Perhaps that's the reason mass media companies aren't diving into it. A private platform denies access to users either by their own moderating algorithm or because they're told by gov't sources to dampen comments they thought were disinformation. It stinks but so what. Twitter had the right to not cooperate with the bad boys, or to accede to the request. Which they did. They're private! They're First Amendment protected! They have the right to decide to do just that. Big deal. It's only one corporate platform out of many.
Now there's Parler and Truth Social. There's probably more. Will they cave when Biden's wokies comes around? Who knows. They're still around with a very high conservative content.
Is there corporate censorship? Yes! Absolutely yes! So what do you do?
When a private company allows the government to censor, that’s a violation of the first amendment. Had they done it on their own, it would not have been. It’s the government insinuating themselves into this that’s the problem and unconstitutional.
Twitter could have, and arguably should have, denied their request. It was within their right as a private entity to do so. And if they had, what would the Gov't had done? Fine them? Sue them? Imprison them? Now you have your unconstitutionality.
Lee, as soon as Twitter began taking directives from the Biden Administration, through the FBI, they are no-longer private. They've become an agent of the state.
"They're private" is not a reasonable basis to shrug off the fact that they lied repeatedly, and possibly under oath in DC hearings, about not doing exactly what they were doing. Few contest Twitter's authority to blacklist and suppress. But being lied to about it is good reason to be disgusted with former Twitter high mucky mucks.
So true. We now know that the old Twitter was the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, directed by the government. That denies them the defense of “But we’re a private company”. It didn’t work for IG Farben at the Nuremburg trials, and it won’t work for Dorsey and company.
Fair points. Conventional wisdom suggests that Big Tech companies are free to "moderate content" because they're private and the 1st Amendment only protects against government censorship. But Twitter ceases to be a private company and becomes a state actor when it does the bidding of the federal government. Using a combination of statutory inducements, regulatory threats, and partisan back scratching, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.
It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”
The Twitter Files shows smoking gun proof of the federal government colluding with the platform to silence dissent.
Moreover, Twitter is (in my opinion) the most important information platform there is, so integral has it become to political discourse. It's the de facto town square, the modern agora. I could go into way more detail about this by linking to a past essay I've written about Twitter, but I've already linked to my substack too many times as it is, and I'll save you the boredom.
But you use the 'town square' defence. As in a recent Texas State Court ruling. Of which I disagree. Twitter is no town square. It appears that way because so many people use it.
A real town square belongs to no one. You stand on your stump and speak - often to no one. It is a real public place, owned by a public entity - and there in lies the difference.
Twitter is not a publicly owned space. It is owned either by one man (now) or shareholders (the old version). Since when does any corporate concern feel beholden to all subscribers for free and unfettered access? They allow content or disallow it. Here for example on the the Free Press they allow all content (for now). It is a corporate choice. And we are here to enjoy it. And if this place changes, we can move on.
You state that Twitter ceases to be a private company and becomes a state actor once it does the government's bidding. And this is new? I have examples in my mind where 60 Minutes held stories because of gov't concerns. NYT as well. Time Magazine too.
Why were the Watergate revelations so important back in 1973? Because finally an American news organization went against government pressure. It took guts. It didn't happen normally. It was never a given - most American journalism was passive, timid.
Twitter caved. They censored. That's true. But that is simply a decision they made. They could have gone the other way.
Where we disagree most is on the importance of Twitter. For the record, I hate the platform and think it's a social sewer. And this is all just my opinion. But I think the platform has far more of an impact in shaping reality than most people realize because it's the playground of elites, who have the biggest influence on the discourse and narratives society uses to make sense of itself.
It follows, then, that if a group (say, for example, a political party) holds inordinate influence/control over the medium where our society’s most important discourse happens, that group is in a position to adjudicate the bounds of acceptable content and therefore possesses an extraordinary degree of influence over which ideas gain traction.
Also, while people use Twitter for a variety of reasons, it’s evolved into a global PA system thanks to its most singular feature: the retweet. The retweet function is a force multiplier, the fastest way to simultaneously spread and endorse information. And it’s frictionless. A tweet by itself is basically a text message, except instead of one-to-one, it's one-to-many; but when you add in the retweet function, no communication platform can compete. It's why I believe that, even with dozens of alternative mediums available for use, no other independent channel of information holds as much potential for radical ideological change on a mass scale.
It sure looks like the town square. Looks like common carrier too. I like town square more but it's the taller hill to hike.
Gov't intervening in the dealings of a private company is neither nor proper. Just because the gov't violates the law frequently and in the same way over time with many different businesses is no defense for nefarious conduct.
Can you imagine?
Mobster: Sure I've been extorting this neighborhood but we've been doing it for years.
Your defense was, basically, ~everybody knows they've been doing this forever.~
The issue was the claimed defense not the specific players. I changed the players (to make the point more vivid) but applied the same defense. That's fair game. Defenses are not specific to the category of defendant. What is available to Peter is available to Paul.
We have many cell phone carriers. No one needs to have a cell phone. But what if Verizon decided to monitor calls and prevent texting and calls without your knowledge, because they didn't like what you were saying. And the only carriers you could subscribe to have very poor coverage and don't always connect to who you wanted. Would that be right? We are already seeing many companies just stop serving people because of what they believe. We even have Christians being kicked out of restaurants. No one covers that, but if it was anyone in a protected group, it would be all over the news and the restaurant would be out of business.
I used to think that too. It took me awhile to realize I was wrong. As soon as an organization starts to do business with the government it's no longer an independent agent operating in a free market. At that point they are not really private.
The importance of the story is not that they "denied access" to users. It is that they LIED about it - to Congress UNDER OATH, and to their unflavored users, who they were happy to monetize while not providing the full service to all. To respond to your misinformation comment, I refer you to Unwoke in Idaho (below) who explains doing the Government's censorship for it is not the right of a public company.
We're treating Twitter as if it's God's gift to free speech in the electronic age. It emphatically is not. It can be replaced, and probably will be as soon as we stop typing. It is NOT the only platform out there! It is not the only organ of communication in the ether.
People will go somewhere else if it's deemed to be compromised.
Lee, have you not noticed that we do not live in a free country anymore. All of our institutions are woke controlled. Thousands have already lost jobs, livelihoods, reputation and even their freedom. And this is accelerating. You will never know this because all mainstream news is controlled. I believe hiding behind the "private company" defense of Twitter and all powerful tech companies is inappropriate today. And I am an entrepreneur who believes in laissez-faire capitalism. But the tech giants in alliance with our woke government and all other American institutions have obliterated FREE ENTERPRISE and FREE SPEECH. It is clear they believe in neither. Sure some small business and free speech is available for woke apologists to point to. But in the context of where America is at today, they are examples for a fantasyland perspective.
It's not just about the people on Twitter. Twitter has the power to influence politics, businesses, doxing, and most aspects of our lives. People change decisions based on the response on Twitter and that can effect many lives.
Late Thursday, reporters from publications including the Washington Post, the New York Times, Mashable and CNN were listed as blocked and their tweets were no longer visible. Musk said the suspended profiles, which included sports and political commentator Keith Olbermann, were of people who had posted his real-time location, describing the information as “basically assassination coordinates.”
So let me get this straight. You're bitching because some imperious journos blatantly broke a rule that results in a suspension, for which they were suspended?
No one has to accept people posting their whereabouts...the Left has been posting addresses to harass and threaten people as a tactic. It shouldn't just be something that Twitter blocks. It should be illegal in my opinion. It's disgusting behavior and it's a threat. Threats are not okay and threats are not free. Speech. Posting someone's current address so that people can find them and possibly hurt them is a threat. And everyone knows it. Everyone knows why addresses are being revealed. And if you deny that then you just want people hurt. I'm sure you'll think it's okay unless it happens to you and your family and your children.
Take it from someone whose family fled Communism: Freedom of speech, along with due process, is the bedrock of a functioning democracy. Twitter’s censorship is antithetical to the values that made America a superpower. I’m glad to see these files being put out. I'm glad that writers like me can freely express our opinions online on sites like Substack. It reminds me and other immigrants to this great country that democracy is still worth fighting for.
It takes the clarity of vision from someone who was raised outside the U.S. to wake us up, or at least some of us, from our woke stupor. The mainstream media is panicking: what if people thought for themselves? What if their readers found more credible sources of information? What if the shepherds of thought began to lose their flock?
Yeah. It's sad to see America slide into authoritarianism after hundreds of years as a proud democracy. "Cancel culture" is just the beginning of America's own woke Cultural Revolution.
Sorry to put a damper on things, Sheluyang. So I take it you're somewhat new here (or not). Okay. If you were to go back I'd say eighty to a hundred years ago right here in free speech lovin' USA, you would find publishers like William Randolph Hearst, Henry Luce (and there were many more..) who decided by fiat who to publish and who not to, what to report and what not to, what to conceal and what not to, who readily acceded to US Gov't requests to slant their political stories or to not publish stories at all. And Americans at that time all bought it, hook, line and sinker.
I do not condone that. I decry that.
But the point I'm attempting to make is that what we're seeing at Twitter/Facebook is nothing new, or surprising, nor (as so many here are saying, breathlessly), the end of free speech as we know it. It is not. We've seen this all before. And we survived it.
I would go as far to say that we are better off now than ever before because of the radical and disruptive nature of the Internet and social media itself. There's more free speech now than before in this country's history simply because there are far more (exponentially more) media platforms to peruse, use, read, and join. With little to no gatekeepers, unlike in the 20th century.
We had a three channel universe as recently as only forty years ago. There are thousands of channels now.
Feel free to express your opinions. Feel free to expect that you can in the future. We're doing it here right now. That's a positive, not a negative.
I agree that the media has always had a bias or a financial interest in what to publish or what to hold back, but readers and viewers were mostly in the dark and didn't question the integrity of the NY Times or CBS. Ignorance is bliss. However, now that we are inundated with the good, the bad, and the ugly 24/7 it's caused us to question all of it. The reality that maybe much of what we are reading or seeing is only half the truth or possibly even "fake" is waking us up to be more discerning.
I was born in Los Angeles in 1947, and lived all of my life in Calif but now own another home in a safer, more red state as a Plan B. LA is a dystopia which people are fleeing. Or like me have a Plan B home in a red state. I know this from talking to countless friends and others who have fled or are preparing to flee. And reading the understated mainstream stats. I have seen much too much including talks with very senior LA police officers. I have many friends who have fled totalitarian countries, and they all confirm America is heading swiftly into totalitarianism. Only these woke tyrants have enough control of the means of propaganda and tech to make someone as bright as you think all will be well.
My hero is my wife's father who insisted his very frightened young wife escape the Warsaw ghetto with him - just in time. Most Jews in Europe simply could not believe how serious the situation was. The control the woke have over America is overwhelming. If freedom returns to us, it will be after an awful struggle. But it is no longer very likely.
All is not well, I concur . And the new mayor of LA has a huge mountain to climb. As do other mayors of large cities.
I look at it as a pendulum. It’s swinging left now, especially re crime, homelessness, immigration and drug abuse.
Make no mistake, millions of liberals feel the same as you. I do.
The pendulum has no choice but to slowly swing back right. And it will, because citizens no matter their political stripe will not accept anymore what’s happening on the ground.
I am not as pessimistic as you, but I respect where you’re coming from.
Lee-- I think you may be right. I, a former liberal Democrat, have become a moderate Democrat due to the failings of my liberal state government. I have also seen such sadness on the streets of LA and such horror in many of the schools where I work in Watts and Compton. So my pendulum has swung, like many of my friends.
Those Old Boys who insisted that the new Constitution have a written Bill of Rights were well aware of its importance, and were it not for the First Amendment (backed by the Second), we would I believe already be beyond hope - another of Solzhenitsyn's gulags. My reading suggests that you are right on the money about the European Jews' innocence about the Nazi plan for them. Thanks to modern communication - Substack and this blog in particular - many of us now are not.
It is possible to wake up the masses. As I browse the Internets each day I see the ship slowly turning 'round. Will it be in time? Don't know.
I share a bit of the same feeling since I live in LA and am looking to move soon. When I was at CVS 6 weeks ago, it was robbed right in front of all of us and the young security guard. It was 4 PM. The manager told us that it happens "every day." But it's too dangerous for any of them to confront the thieves because they may have a gun. Typically, they lose $30,000 worth of merchandise a week. Then-- a couple of weeks ago, it happened again while I was waiting to pick up a prescription. A guy (looking like the kid from Breaking Bad) came in grabbed boxes of some meds. then stumbled and fell onto the floor and scrambled to pick the 30 or so boxes and stuff them into his pants and hoodie, while we all just watched not sure what to do. Myself and the others waiting in line commented that life is getting much worse if this is the norm.
I politely would like to point out in 1850 New York City had 53 newspapers. By 1900 it still had 15 and that these spanned the political and social landscape.
Yes in the 1970s there were the 3 big networks and PBS for news so it was limited in choice.
What I think you fail to account for is that both newspapers in 1800s and 1900s came out once to at most twice a day and with that space limit there was a limit on how much yellow journalism was possible. Sure you had Hearst pushing war, but only once a day.
In the 1970s Walter Cronkite had 1-2 hours a day for news so even the most important stories got maybe 10 minutes a day. For the most part Cronkite tried to not comment on the news - not perfectly but much better than today.
Then came 24 hour news with CNN. And since you had 24 hours to fill, the stories got more and more air time and the anchors got more time to talk about them and present more than just the facts.
I do not think we are better off today because we have more and more outlets of news at our fingertips from all sides and are constantly barraged by mixed stories and opinions. I think it is making us into Roddy McDowall in a Clockwork Orange, creating emotional reactions in us that are outside our controls. We are being made tribal by what we choose to read or watch.
My hope is Free Press is a place I can come to for news and not feel like my eyelids are being held open with pins forcing me to listen to the left or the right.
I am not a fan of the biased aspects of social media (and mass media, as well), it is a large problem (and growing) - and miss often the gatekeeping of an earlier era.
I recall in the early days of chat rooms, some of the big media outlets had discussion forums on their websites. The networks soon learned of a vociferous public body who was well aware of their slanted narratives. There were many posts directing criticism at the journalists themselves, inviting them to engage in the public forum to discuss certain, er, well "discrepencies" between events personally witnessed by participants, and the reports coming down from the media. An actual comment from a reporter was extremely rare. For the most part the comments were officially ignored.
Eventually, all of the networks shut down the public forums on their sites, often without any warning or notice to participants. One day a forum was there, the next it was gone. No comment or parting message. Whole groups of kindred spirits simply cast asunder like chaff. That was when I realized that the networks knew they were wrong, and that public forum would be the best means to expose Media Bias. I just never expected it would take this long. This was 20 or so years ago.
I agree with this and believe it to be factually accurate. However, thew new tools and technology available today makes a biased thumb on the scale much more dangerous and impactful.
Lee Morris, but newspapers that long ago (thinking 100-150 y/a) were often of a similar model to UK papers. They were sponsored by political organizations with a clear bias. They pandered and propagandized. The movement toward straight news started around 80 years ago (that doesn't mean they were content neutral - clearly they were not). That newspapers aspired to objective truth in reporting as their business model is the exception not the rule. They still claim that model but routinely ignore it.
My favorite Jewish Justice said it perfectly: “...sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman” ~~~ 1913 Harper’s Weekly article, entitled “What Publicity Can Do.”
Everyone talks around the horror driven reality of the monstrous IMF/WEF/CCP juggernaut responsible for thought crime and free speech arrests in Great Britain and the assault on farmers in the Netherlands. British councils are now attempting to impose travel permits limiting movement and restricting citizens to designated 'zones'. How long can we ignore reports on the distorted application of the newly expanded euthanasia laws in Canada? Social credit scores? Where exactly is the line of demarcation between the free man and the slow boiled toad in the worldwide corporate controlled bureaucratic surveillance state?
Their price gouging, supply chain manipulating, we'll reduce the world to a cinder if we don't get our way reality makes it clears that the thugs have compromised American elected political leadership. And, let me say this again: The avarice of sycophants like Gates, Schwab and the Clinton's has moved the political squarely into the pathological. Insane megalomaniacal narcissism is enslaving the world. It represents a soulless, anti-human sterility, attempting the reduction of human beings to cyber thingdom. It is the same feudal, cold in the head, heartless, totalitarian, life destroying, cheap labor, resource exploiting, no consequences for me grift that has been murdering us for centuries. This time it is masked as "we love you and the planet so much" environmentalism. The LIE is totally transparent and yet--there it is. How?
We have entered a new age and it is demanding a new Consciousness. The vision of a viable human future is no longer beyond, it is within each of us. And we are in an open war. The fight is and has always been on Consciousness. America is ill and so are Americans. Fentanyl, gutted industry,a looted economy, homelessness, political graft and the ten thousand other cuts slow bleeding our prosperity and future can only be stopped by us. If we use Orwell and Solzhenitsyn to pinch the American psyche in our fight against the ascending totalitarian numbness, it is also time to reconnect and feed ourselves, and each other, with Wang Wei, Sandberg and the deep nourishment of the human culture countless people across the world, and across our living history, gave their lives to create. We are the answer we seek. And, the cavalry ain't coming.
The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights it contains is the only engine of human survival.
Act while you still have one.
Marxist 'woke' is the lipstick on a pig named Totalitarian Finance.
Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. --Benjamin Franklin 1737 -- still true today.
Being a physician and scientist did not inform my first impression that Covid-19 may have originated in a level 4 virology lab in Wuhan. I began looking seriously at the behavior of the virus in February 2020 when TWITTER kicked ZeroHedge (a financial site with 670K followers) off the platform for reporting on a likely lab leak instead of animal (at that time Pangolin, now debunked) reservoir and transmission to humans of this bat virus. How did Twitter know this was disinformation in February 2020? Ignorance or intentional? Twitter had said “those who engage in coordinated attempts to spread disinformation at scale about coronavirus issue will be removed from service.” And that was that. Now that it is clear that "operative" twitter employees of all sorts were privy to open and DM data inside of twitter, there is no doubt in my mind that ZeroHedge was not kicked off for disinformation, but rather for "real information" that the CCP (and likely our own government bureaucrats) did not want our citizens to see. It was a threat lobbed at any who might want to question the origin of the virus. This is not just suppression of free speech, but a crime scene indeed. I hope one of the investigative reporters is following this sinister trail.
I'm still in absolute shock that social media rolled out its censorship program by silencing people warning about COVID, because "the WHO has not yet declared it a pandemic."
Their censorship of the truth directly influenced public policy in a way that left the country unprepared for catastrophe, and half of the country thought that was fine and that social media should also censor qualified scientists, or anybody whatsoever who contradicts Democrat propaganda.
I don't think there is a single principle on which this country was founded that Democrats are not actively working to undermine and destroy.
Now we getting closer to the truth Anthony, I’m not surprised that it has come from you. The Democrats had to get rid of President Trump, they had been trying to since his inauguration. Covid was a perfect storm for them. The rest as they say is history. We have 2 years to take America back please God we can!
Lee Morris, please. There is a very powerful and influential group of people called The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whose entire purpose of existence is to prevent and control disease.
These people pushed trash science, Chinese propaganda, nonsense policies, and harsh punishment for anybody who speaking out for the truth.
The blame for an out of control disease we failed to prevent is 100% on The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Which is overwhelmingly Democrat, especially in its leadership, along with the leadership of other federal health agencies.
Mike Pence was one of the only people in the entire government who actually had a competent response. While the CDC rolled out a disastrously failed testing program, Pence used the FDA to cut red tape and go around them to get millions of tests underway. The CDC were furious. That was when the CDC press conferences said "we aren't seeing evidence of community spread" - because their testing program was a failure and they had no eyes on the ground.
Meanwhile I ran around Seattle for two month warning everybody who would listen to stop travelling to major events, while the locals told me I wasn't an expert and the Democrat media publicly declared me a "right wing conspiracy theorist" for warning people about the virus.
At the time, Joe Biden was publicly advocating for allowing the virus over the border. "Don't listen to Trump's hysterical, xenophobic fear mongering" was the exact quote.
I'm not saying the CDC were saints, or even competent. They were probably more wrong than right - but of course 20/20 hindsight does help. They turned themselves into pretzels on masks, against them, for them. School lockdowns, no. Then yes, Then no again. Then yes. It was a fifty state fuck up. Right?
If you were warning about the virus early on, good on you. You were being responsible, and prescient.
Pence was right - and even Trump (I hate saying it), he got a fast track vaccine in place (and I don't know how you feel about that).
But being unprepared as a country? Both parties own that.
You are correct. Both Democrats and Republicans, even President Trump, allowed the Pharmaceutical industry to take over control. I was shocked that Trump allowed Fauci to remain in a position of authority. That alone made me lose faith in Trump during the pandemic. I now support DeSantis as the current front runner.
Blame will not get us anywhere. We must demand an investigation. This transcends partisan politics. This political divide is another product of our esteemed media "watchdogs", all of whom are "Brought to you by Pfizer".
A true grass roots outcry will be needed. Media will not cover it. Perhaps online, on Twitter, et al.
He was criticizing liberal control of social media not any administration. Conservatives were not and do not dominate social media administration. The left does and they were happy to block tweets and accounts that challenged their hegemony on the "truth."
There are lots. I am sure some will question the sources but no defamation suits have been filed and she is not a "public person" so should have the benefit of that protection if it is not true. The deposition referred to was late November, 2022 and he said she had left Twitter "over a year ago" so that mean she was there during a critical period. She was a software engineer and my impression.is that she was at Twitter well before the covid outbreak.
I still don’t know what possible motive our Fed govt could have “hiding” the origins of the virus....we had already unfriended China, so their loyalty wasn’t a motive. I think maybe people exaggerate the importance of Covid origins. Scientifically, it’s important, but as a social/political tool, I don’t get it. The issue is overhyped.
The stated purpose is to be able to predict the next pandemic and to prepare a vaccine for it in advance. That has been proven to be unfeasible. It is impossible to predict what natural virus will appear next. Scientists have challenged the feasibility of gain-of-function for the stated purpose.
The only known use for it so far is to produce viruses that do not appear in nature. AKA Biowarfare with the added benefit to Big Pharma. They did a hasty cleanup and sent us the bill. Billions.
Think of the BP spill. Would we pay BP to clean it up? Now think over 5 billion dead and the entire planet affected. The single biggest man made environmental disaster in history. No oil spill has ever affected so many so severely.
This needs to be halted immediately. At a minimum it should never be done in the midst of a crowded city. Unless of course you want the inhabitants to be used as your proof of concept.
I fully agree. We need to take a hard look at medical and scientific ethics. IMO we need to determine what kind of world we want and what tinkering with it will and will not be allowed. And this is not a left/right issue. Obama banned gain-of-function and the odious Fauci funded it anyway. He says he did not know but if he really did not he should have. The Chinese and Russians scare me. The Chinese have already produced a human chimera that survived 8 days. Who knows what the Russians are doing now but they have performed genetic experiments for decades.
Pfizer opened an R&D lab in the Wuhan research center in 2009. Pfizer is the biggest sponsor of nightly news. Pfizer is one of the largest contributors to political campaigns, both Democrat or Republican. Gain of Function is done for the benefit of Pharmaceutical companies. Who would bite the hand that feeds them?
In my humble opinion, blaming China is not taking into account that Gain of Function research was conceived to benefit the Pharmaceutical industry. The Pharma people were in a cooperative effort with the Chinese Scientists. The "lab leak" if it happened, could just as easily come from the Pfizer lab.
It is certainly worth investigating an issue with the potential to kill us all next time.
Linked below is a video containing a very a very comprehensive discussion of the topic, however even it does not address the fact that the research is for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry. I would encourage everyone to watch it whether you like the parties involved or not.
This link begins at at the mid point of discussion, at the crux of the issue in my opinion. Feel free to watch the entire thing.
I agree. When I refer to a Wuhan lab implicit in that is in cooperation with "the science" in this country. It seems to.me that a lot of folks too intelligent to believe in God sure enjoy playing god.
Imagine a company or companies being responsible for the most deadly man made environmental disaster ever seen by humanity. Imagine those companies being the largest sponsor of our media watchdogs. Imagine them also being the largest contributors to politicians, Democrat and Republicans. Imagine this disaster causing the entire world to slip into a recession, and causing commerce and education to be completely shut down for two years. Imagine the world being isolated at home watching on television the very programming that is primarily supported by that industry. Keyword is "programming".
Now imagine those same companies being hired to clean up the mess that they have made, and doing so in a manner that itself injures additional parties.
Now imagine these companies sending you a bill amounting to billions of dollars for their haphazard cleanup work. Imagine our government having the audacity to pay that bill, with the money of the victims.
It went beyond free speech when it effectively shut down legitimate scientific discourse from (now over 900,000) scientists and clinicians. That should scare the shit out of everybody.
Wow, I absolutely agree with Elon's take on this, and have been hoping that Substack would be the beginning of the new Fourth Estate, The reason Biden and his cabinet are successfully doing so many destructive and unethical things is because they can. The media, that was supposed to be the final check on the three pillars is actually rooting them on. Hopefully, what started for me by finding Bari, Matt, Glenn, Sasha, Saager and Krystal (all of who have likely voted totally differently than me in ever one of the past several decades) is that our government is not functioning the way it has for over 200 years, and is in serious danger of crashing. Free Speech has to be protected, and Media needs to be credible.
I can't even believe what an amazing experience that had to be for you, Nellie, Suzi, Matt and everyone.
Now, tell us how they've controlled the COVID messaging and the Green religion!
I'm a fan of all of those same writers but I'm going to have to look up one of them. I would recommend adding Michael Shellenberger (here on Substack) and Kim Iverson (on YouTube and soon to be on Rumble too) to your list too.
To be honest, I joined Twitter a month ago and have trouble keeping up with my paid Substack subscriptions because I've been immersed in Twitter. I follow them all there.
Sasha Stone and Glenn were commenting frequently during the five Twitter File dumps.
"Musk barging into the Twitter Tower on Market Street and turning over the tables. But I’m not sure anyone should have that kind of power."
Well then maybe instead we accept that the left collective created by the corrupt education system and infesting the media and big tech has power to influence elections where their puppet leaders like Joe Biden have all the power and we lie to ourselves that this is just democracy and fair elections.
At some point we have to rely on and rally behind the single heroes of freedom to save us and fight the Dunning-Kruger effect. We should never let the pursuit of attainable character perfection be the enemy of the good. Musk's character is 100000% times better for civilization than is the cabal of corporatist power seeking to destroy him. Don't get sucked into that maw of media manufactured groupthink against him.
If not Musk now, who or what? Considering the DOJ and the feds are totally corrupt [see Twitter exposure alone]? Get real; Musk IS the only choice AND what he did opening up ALL to Barri et al--just first dibs publish on Twitter.... Good to be skeptical Barri--but get real; for now NO choice but Musk....watch him as much as you want...and if he goes bad, tell us
I would have agreed with you until recently. The FBI saved the life of a man I worked with who had been kidnapped so I was predisposed to giving them a a lot of credit. When we saw them faking a FISA warrant (see Clinesmith) to spy on Carter Page was strike one. The FBI working with Twitter to oppress US citizens' speech is strike 2 and 3. If these bedrock patriots are there, they need to start whistleblowing everywhere. The organization is clearly corrupt and that has nothing to do with MAGA.
"left collective created by the corrupt education system and infesting the media"
"puppet leaders like Joe Biden have all the power and we lie to ourselves that this is just democracy and fair elections."
" cabal of corporatist power seeking to destroy him. Don't get sucked into that maw of media manufactured groupthink against him."
100% propaganda with words designed to rally hate and negate thinking. Read some Orwell and learn how to clean up your language to speak and communicate clearly. I recommend starting with "Politics and The English Language"
“…with words designed to rally hate and negate thinking.”
What thinking person in the U.S. cannot see that the entire education system (one example) has been not only terribly degraded but corrupted by the power concentrated in teacher’s and administrative unions? More money funneled down the hopper of “Big Education” is not the solution. Same with health care.
If you mean K-12 education I agree that it is a mess and needs major reform. The Teachers Unions are no doubt part of the problem, but so are meddlesome politicians and even parents who want to decide what other people’s children should be allowed to learn.
“left collective created by the corrupt education system and infesting the media"
Is just a nonsensical and pointlessly inflammatory that conflates problem with solutions. I guess it is easier than thinking though.
However, the United States university education system is the envy of the world and all the wealthy people send their children here for education.
We are the best in the world by any reasonable measure: Nobel prizes, scientific discoveries, engineering advances, billionaires, leaders in other companies, etc.
It is true that over time, as the Conservative movement has retreated from the values of scientific discovery and reason that highly educated people have tended to move away from it. But it’s not because science has changed.
Go ahead and respond like you are programmed to do: call me a racist, misogynist, homophobic, semi-fascist, irredeemable deplorable. And then lecture me on how to not be divisive in rhetoric.
I will quote Orwell at length here because it is apparent that you are unwilling to consider reading him:
“ Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. I will come back to this presently, and I hope that by that time the meaning of what I have said here will have become clearer. Meanwhile, here are five specimens of the English language as it is now habitually written.”
“ All the ‘best people’ from the gentlemen's clubs, and all the frantic fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror at the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoise to chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the crisis.”
“ In (4), the writer knows more or less what he wants to say, but an accumulation of stale phrases chokes him like tea leaves blocking a sink. In (5), words and meaning have almost parted company. People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning — they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another — but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying. A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. The will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear”
Rallying hate and pointing out hate are two different things. Assuming you are not a bot, I suspect you know the difference. Projection is not your strong suit.
Pointing out hate can rally hate. If you call people enough of those words, TERF for example, you dehumanize them, and feel less guilty about being violent toward them. Maybe you even feel justified.
Bari, you are such a gift to this country. The work you (and a handful of others) are doing to fight for a rigorous, honest, free press is essential to the survival of the American republic. Keep up the good fight.
“Honest, dogged, independent journalism.” This Twitter story reflects your stated mission, Bari.
Elon Musk invited you, trusted you, to dig into Twitter archives and report what you, and others, found there. You have reported those damning facts; but you didn’t stop there. You’re also expressing curiosity, perhaps even a degree of skepticism, about Elon - his motives and objectives. In other words, you’re looking at all sides of this huge story instead of allowing yourself to go all in for the guy who invited you behind the curtain. Such journalistic curiosity and objectivity is what I somewhat naively continue to hold out hope for. The Free Press delivers. Thank you!
Interesting comment, Mark. I find Musk's invitation to Weiss to 'investigate' the 'old' Twitter manipulative. And I find Weiss's deep dive into it all as naive. I think she's being played. Musk is using her to establish credibility and conservative bona fides. Weiss accepts an invitation (as you rightly said) from someone that she might have to report hard truths about. Does that not strike you as being compromised?
In my view to maintain HER own credibility, Bari should have refused the offer and dug into the stuff the hard way.
Nah. For any such rivalry to exist, the platforms would have to be similar in content and approach. Twitter and The Free Press are not remotely similar.
Awesome work from you and the rest of the journalists leading the charge with this! It's still super encouraging to see Musk put all the information into the hands of capable, independent writers who care about honesty! Can't wait to read more!
I think he is bipolar and in a manic phase, but that’s just my unprofessional opinion.
Are his actions heroic? That’s not an easy question to answer but given his wealth and stature I would have to say no. A real hero is someone like a combat medic or dissident reporter, who has to overcome fear of life or death consequences and risks all to follow their values.
Musk is untouchable and he knows it. Losing $44B would be uncomfortable but he would still be a billionaire many times over.
He’s just another rich man throwing his wealth around to attract attention.
I think unintentionally (though maybe not), the Twitter files project, may be more than any other before it, has uncovered the necrotic, decomposing body of the corporate media. This isn't simply because of the yeoman's work the team has done to uncover the facts, but rather because of the media's response to Bari, Taibbi, et al.
It's easy for the corporate press to dismiss people like Ben Shapiro because after all, he's one of "them" (Conservative, not Jewish, of course). But when the likes of Bari and Taibbi come along who have true, though somewhat heterodox, liberal bona fides, the media have a choice...they can listen, think and evaluate, or they can implement the No True Scotsman fallacy.
No TRUE liberal would do propaganda for the richest man on earth, therefore, they can be ignored as well because they are Right Wingers just like Shapiro and the rest of the far-right, nazi loving, white supremacists.
Corporate Media is dead and stinks to high heaven...they just don't realize it yet.
I did a deep dive into tech companies performance prior to investing and Twitter stood out as complete outlier on the low side. I have kept up with it and periodically posted about it.
Twitter stock IPO'd around $42 and stayed there for 10 years. It crept up and back a few times. Compare that to other tech companies that grew 3x to 10x in that time. Twitter never made money. A few positive quarters, but mostly lost money. Revenues grew very slowly, but costs grew faster. Again, compare that to the revenues of Amazon, Google, Facebook (not to mention some of their subsidiaries who outdid Twitter by miles - WhatsApp, Youtube, Instagram, etc. Total monthly users at Twitter were stuck at 300MM while many sites grew to over 1B. Twitter has been sliding down the rankings of users and is now at 22 among social media sites. There was virtually zero innovation in making the product better. Increasing the number of characters was about it. Musk has already done more innovation and promised much more. It seems most of the people in Twitter were developing tools to censor and/or running around like chicken littles personally trying to censor. Using mostly Twitter data (which, over the years, Twitter made less available) they had about 66MM daily active users in the US. When you subtracted out their estimates on bots at the time, businesses, almost all of whom are on Twitter, including hundreds of accounts for larger ones, duplicate estimates (lot of Pierre Delectos and Carlos Dangers out there), government agencies - federal, state, local), charitable organizations, etc, and you get down to somewhere between 600K and 3MM actual people tweeting every day. Less than 1% of the country. Twitter is not the real world.
I worked for a fortune 5 company, and had to lead some large government contracts at times. I thought I knew bureaucracy, TLA spewers (three letter acronyms), and dysfunctional decision making. One of the biggest takeaways from the Twitter files outside of the actual news put out by these reporters is just the sheer dysfunction within Twitter, the number of teams - half of whom did not really seem to know why they existed-, the horrible "decision by committee" that routinely got kicked up to executive levels, and of course the group think that it took to come to some of their conclusions. Stunning. Musk was right to lay waste to the structure. By the way, I liked how he did it. First top down (it was easy to see and calculate how many people you actually needed), and then bottom up with his "work hard or leave" ultimatum, where people self selected out.
The least curious people in the country right now are the credentialed news media. How disgustingly ironic that newspapers with highfalutin mottos like “Democracy Dies in Darkness” and ”All the News That’s Fit to Print” are refusing to cover arguably the biggest story of the year in even the briefest of ways. It’s testament to the bizarre situation we now find ourselves, in which the biggest advocates of state and corporate censorship are media corporations and their employees. Journalists are among the leading proponents for political censorship. That is surreal.
https://euphoricrecall.substack.com/p/the-twitter-files
Come on man! They cover it. With a blanket so it smothers.
That's basically what CNN did today. They finally covered it so they could discredit it. According to Oliver Darcy, "Musk selected a handful of journalists unaffiliated with major credible news organizations."
“major credible news organizations” LMFAO I’m peeing!!
😂😂😂
“major credible news organizations” I think that is called an oxymoron.
Bari Weiss cannot bring herself to fully support Musk. I understand that one should always be skeptical, but she is already warning us that he too will inevitably become another power-grabbing totalitarian as is the woke left is today. She is already worrying that he will be like the totalitarian Bolsheviks who took out the totalitarian Csar.
We should watch Musk carefully, but the fact that he allows people like Weiss and Taibbi, who are ONLY partially red-pilled, speaks volumes to me.
I question his ties to China, but I also see he has a little George Washington in him. It appears he doesn't need to become the king. I hope Bari actually DOES support those few, incredibly brave people who actually do fight the current overwhelmingly powerful totalitarian regime.
Maybe because Musk is removing/banning people from Twitter that criticize him?
This post aged well given this evening's news (where Musk is not only banning kids tracking his plane but also journalists reporting on the story)
I was never a Musk fan, but I do respect what he has done with Twitter. Until last week, I had no idea how convinced our betters were that all speech should be censored by ... people like them ... to protect us clods from Wrongthink.
Now they're turning on Musk and trying to make us believe we should hate him because he is just plain evil. And some people seem to be buying this hooey.
Very distressing, that.
That's how they roll. Attack and label and name call but never ever discuss issues and certainly not facts that you do not like and cannot counter. In Musk, they have met their match. They cannot call him stupid or against science or anti-intellectual. That's why they have made him public enemy No. 1
the reference to "Hitler" has gone down since Uncle Joe was inaugurated, guessing it will return in force for Musk.
Yes, and now prominent Democratic politicians and liberal influencers are falsely claiming that "hate speech" has skyrocketed with Musk at the helm of Twitter. It's a two-pronged approach: They're trying to 1) manufacture the need for the government to step in and increase its control of speech on the platform now that it’s lost its informal channels to do that, and 2) make the platform toxic to advertisers and thus force the company into bankruptcy.
It's sad that Democrats/mainstream media can just lie all they want and not be help accountable. I listen to some of my friends say things I cannot believe, but I know who they are listening to. As a Christian, many people believe anything I believe is hate speach.
It's pure partisanship.
One family member and I have a common interest in spaceflight and science in general. This family member also happens to be an avid Democrat Activist. The cause does not really matter as long as there is a good band and swag. Back in the day she was so proud of having ridden next to Elon Musk on a commercial flight (when SpaceX was nearly bankrupt).
Today Musk is living in her head 24/7/365, just a floor below Trump. And I'm treated like a bootlicker. Makes for great family gatherings.
‘Never a Musk fan’. Who had any opinion of Musk at all until this past year? What’s to not like? I am asking sincerely. I don’t get it.
I had an opinion. Besides rockets and electric cars, which are inherently futuristic and cool, I saw him on Saturday Night Live and he was adorable. More important, he came right out and said he had Asperger's, which was brave.
However, I also saw who he had a child with and what they named him, so I wasn't completely enamored. Yikes. He calls the kid X now, so that's fine.
Overall though, I'm a fan. He's incredibly brilliant, enigmatic, funny and he talks to ordinary people on Twitter.
I wonder what they call X for short. I mean X is as short a name as possible. Oh, well. The concerns of billionaires with dozens of children is out of my paygrade.
Unlike any wealthy genius I have ever seen. In the best way.
The Boring Company: this appears to be an exercise in dangerous lunacy 100% likely to get folk killed.
Tesla: Electric cars are several times more expensive and several times more environmentally dubious than the IC engine variety.
These two are balanced somewhat in that he is taking advantage of stupid people with more money than sense. That they are in the vast majority stupid Americans is even more pleasing to me.
Space X: More power to Elon's elbow.
My conclusions here are pre-Covid and probably pre-Trump as 45.
Taking over Twitter might cancel out a lot of Musk's negatives; but he isn't The Messiah.
Hey man, we are the unwashed masses. Being ignorant, uneducated rabble we need some glassy eyed, drool on her/his chin, left wing fanatic to interpret what is real and what is not.
We are expected to be grateful and not question their noble, altruistic endeavors. Don't think of it as censorship but as enlightenment. Halleluiah!
It really pisses me off that some self righteous dip shit makes a decision on what I can or cannot read. It is my, MY RIGHT to make up my own mind on what is valid or not valid. I have an excellent education and have lived a long life full of mistakes and full of triumphs. I don't need some 20 something who doesn't know his/her ass from a hole in the ground telling me what or how to think Assholes!
Does that sound like I am angry?.
But you DON'T have a Constitutional Right to a Twitter account or the RIGHT to tell a private company what to do.
Your excellent education should have taught you this.
Whose doing that?
🤣
Well, for you, all that is accurate.
How's your friend "Curt?"
Yes, critiquing his every move.
What I don't get is why so many Democrats are fighting against Musk. Democrats once were the ones who fought for free speech. They once hated big business but are now defending one of the most despicable corporate-government alliances we have ever witnessed. Covering up election interference.
What happened to the liberals I once knew? Are they for anything, or just against everything?
I dunno. It's not free speech if people are free to harass and denigrate me at will. Free speech requires some rules of engagement but as free markets require effective regulation
I don't know your experience and don't want to offend you personally. There always have been bullies whose tactics in arguments have been to try to make the issues personal, which is a cheap excuse for lazy logic. Enacting "rules of engagement" would only give such creeps more attention when, in fact, honest people with different views engage with others in respectful discussions. I have been wrong at least twice in my life and have apologized and befriended former antagonists in longer discussions. This is how we grow.
Death threats aren’t okay.
Just twice? :)
Totally agree. But there are limits, is all. If someone routinely and credibly threatens me with violence, for example, the answer is not necessarily to just stiffen my resolve. It is ludicrous to argue that tolerating such behavior is ok because of free speech which such behavior clearly chills the speech of its victims
I think free speech helps us to identify the creeps. They basically self-identify. Then you can go about the conversation with the normal folks and ignore the creeps.
The cream rises to the top and the dregs fall to a warm place.
You can censor those who "harass and denigrate me at will" by not hanging out with them or reading anything they say. If you don't do that, you are at fault.
Change the channel!
I practice what I preach. I never engage R T or comprof. I find comprof mean, vicious and demeaning. In short, a jerk. I am censoring him, changing the channel.
You know what you can do? Not read it; switch your 'phone/pc/laptop off; click away to something more to your liking. Someone typing that I'm a fucking retard has zilch; zero; double-nought; blank; fuck-all effect on my real-life health or well being.
Rolling Stone referred to Bari as a “conservative!” 😂
Anyone who dares to vary from the hard left, woke, socialist doctrine is considered a conservative. Anyone who does not fall in line with these glassy eyed, goose stepping tyrants is a conservative. Think comprof and R T.
I am convinced that this is just the first step toward a CCP type society. Can you imagine comprof or R T as concentration camp commandants?
If you think this is far fetched, just remember the short lived Biden misinformation board. It was the first sept in the direction of a Goebbels like propaganda machine. Fortunately it was run by a far left idiot.
Lol....why do you keep invoking my name, Lonesome Polecat - yet you never engage me?
Actually, I've done nothing to illustrate being "hard left," "socialist" or "woke" other than....well.....
1. Not being a Trump fan.
2. Not believing there is a white genocide currently occurring or that white kids are in school being screamed at every day by colored folks about how they're "oppressors."
3. Not believing 0.001% of the U.S. population are destroying America.
4. Not being a member of the Derek Chauvin fan club.
5. Not believing gays/lesbians are pedophiles.
If that makes me "woke" in your eyes....well, that says more about you than it does me.
Haha, yeah I actually wrote about this the other day.
https://euphoricrecall.substack.com/p/matt-taibbi-and-bari-weiss-are-conservative
“Conservative” in this sense is used as a smear; it serves as a notice to readers that those branded accordingly should be ignored and everything they say discredited.
Yeah. Somebody either here or at Taibbi echoed that. His claim was that Bari Weiss is a conservative. How do we know? Because she worked for that bastion of conservatism the NYT. 😳
Yet another false claim in RS.
Wasn't that the Washington Post?
What did Rolling Stone say about its former employee Matt Tiabbi ?
I believe they referred to them both as conservatives
Thanks.
🤣🤣🤣 Bari is less delusional than in days gone by but the lift still doesn't reach the penthouse and several slates still need replacing. Several weeks trawling Twitter's back catalogue might result in a complete return to sanity; but I won't get my hopes up!
I🤣🤣🤣I agree 💯 with your post
🤣🤣that’s funny
She is.
Came out in huge support of Joe Rogan when he went through his issue with all his "N*gger episodes" on Spotify. Anyone who thought those episodes were a bit distasteful, she called "leftist mobs" and complained about "cancel culture." Even went after Spotify after they and Rogan mutually agreed to remove all the "N*gger episodes."
But if you criticize the IDF? Anti-Semite.
Show one instance of Bari Weiss saying the IDF is right 100% of the time. Just because she doesn't buy the bullshit "zionist colonialist oppressor" narrative of the PLO and the DNC doesn't mean she excuses bad action by Israel over time.
Show me one instance when Bari doesn't go after someone for criticizing the IDF. Bari has described herself as a Zionist - which is cool - just don't be a disingenuous hypocrite about it.
Hell.....she went after the author Alice Walker when she had a new book that came out not to long ago.
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/
https://slate.com/culture/2019/09/bari-weiss-how-to-fight-antisemitism-review.html
at least they didn't do like WaPo and initially call the Twitter reporters as "right wing" journalists
That’s so funny it’s disgusting.
"Discredit" what?
"They cover it. With a blanket so it smothers"
Or they insert innuendo to sew doubt. I hope I'm wrong but one of the lines in Bari's piece troubles me.
“What does it mean when the owner of Twitter tweets that his pronouns are “Prosecute/Fauci”? Doesn’t that take us back to where we were before?”
Is that a rhetorical smear of a rival platform? Regardless, it's my hope that Musk’s ostensible pronouns take us is to a place that's been lost to us for too long. For over two years America was crushed under the edicts trumpeted by Fauci, amplified by his media toadies and protected by the censorship industrial complex. I hope they lead us to accountability and justice.
I agree on the Fauci comment. I assume it was one of two things. Either she was attempting to establish bona fides with the anti-Musk and/or pro-Fauci crowd (and if that was the best she could do anti-Musk that is not much) or she buys the Fauci is the science narrative.
Bari should save questions of Musk’s twitter stewardship for another day. He’s taken on great personal and financial risk by poking the deep state bear. She should be thrilled that he trusted her with the files. Getting them out to a broader audience should be her paramount concern. It's likely that her stewardship of The Free Press will in no small part be judged accordingly.
On the flip side, I find it impressive how she just got blunt with him about it. Yes. Very impressive.
High end journalism right there.
I hope she reads this post!
Fauci the grim reaper sickle in hand
I always envision him as Gollum.
Prosecuting a public servant who saved hundreds of thousands of lives is not what functioning democracies do. But it’s what the mob wants.
I am not part of any mob so speak only for myself but functioning democracies function best without fear of disclosure. For that reason I want an investigation of the entire covid establishment. I would not limit that to "the Science", er I mean Dr. Fauci, but as the head of it I think he would be the focus. His emails that have already come to light are very informative and I will hazard a guess that an ego that size has left a pretty amazing paper trail. Then there are his many public statements and testimonies. What I really want to know is his involvement, directly or indirectly, in gain of function research, whether at the Wuhan lab or elsewhere. Well that and his economic benefits from.his long-time "public service". I hesitate to call a government job "public service" when the "servant" becomes very wealthy as a result thereof. Lastly, without an investigation we will never know if he saved lives or not, much less how many. What we do know is that the collateral consequences of his actions have been devastating for our nation. I cannot help but think that without an undrrstanding of where the virus came from we will never know what exactly it is or how it works and he actively impeded that determination when it would have mattered the most. If he is as up front as he claims he should have nothing to fear by an examination of his actions.
Sure those are reasonable things to ask about. He makes $400k/yr and is 80. If he has been prudent with his investments at all, he should be pretty well off.
Even if I quit working tomorrow, I should be as wealthy as him if I live that long.
Having said that, the whole political establishment goes to DC middle class and leaves wealthy. They should all be investigated.
I agree with your last sentence. It is my understanding that when "the Science" entered public service the law was that if a public servant while in the employ of the government obtained a patent the patent did not belong to the individual. During "the Science" 's lo-o-o-ng tenure that law changed and he now holds many patents. I think that is likely the source of his wealth which is considerable. ($400,000 is chump change for an urbanite with 3 daughters. I assume his wife, likewise a government bureaucrat had a nice salary as well so doubt that he supported her financially). But he developed those patents in government labs paid for by taxpayers. For him to grow rich thereby is IMO improper. He also yielded enormous power as evidenced by Covid, but prior to that as well. If it is true that he indirectly funded gain-of-function research he should be under a jail somewhere.
Now that was funny. Every word of it.
Credit IowaHawk for that gem!!
All my adult life I'd been a subscriber to the NY Times-- I even worked there during grad school and my daughter had a summer internship there a couple of years ago. I've always had a deep respect for the newspaper. However, I've started to scrutinize what is being written about and what is being left out of the news at the Times. I've also found that some facts that they use are often taken out of context to back up a story-- cherry picking. This has been so disappointing to me that yesterday I cancelled my subscription.
Deirdre, better late than never.
You stayed even after the russia collusion story exposed them as documented liars?
I do like a few of the opinion writers and other parts, as well, but it was my tiny way of taking a stand. At this point, I don't want any sway from the left or right-- I just want the facts so I can make up my own mind.
Good on you Deirdre!
Ditto.
I canceled my subscription 10 years ago. It was like recovering from drugs.
I am going through withdrawl.
That only lasts for a few days. And then the fog lifts and you'll feel free.
Thanks for the support. :-)
I cancelled my subscription a couple of weeks ago too. I’d been hesitant to do so because I do enjoy some of their pieces and I like their games, but it simply did not feel right to continue to contribute to them financially.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Canceled my subscription a few years ago. What has happened to the NYT is beyond disappointing.
Fortunately, there are a lot more sources for news these days.
What facts did you see cherry picked?
For example: Saying that The IRS was targeting poor people because more low income people's tax returns were audited than those of wealthy people. True-- but the IRS was not "targeting." It was simply that one can audit someone who has little money faster than those with millions; hence, auditors would be able to do more audits for lower income folks while millionaires might take longer and fewer could be done in the same amount of time. Cherry picking. I know many media outlets (left and right) do the same thing, not just the Times. But-- at this point, I just want straight, unaltered facts so I can make up my own mind.
Hmm....well sounds like you've already made up you mind. Because you've provided an excellent justification/spin for why lower-income people are audited 5x more than wealthier people.
Also, the use of "targeting" (i.e. what you're complaining about) is not cherry picking - it's called "framing" - using rhetoric/language to encourage a particular interpretation. When you agreed that the story was "True," then it becomes a framing issue.
Framing is Spin is Lying.
The truth is the truth - nobody was targeted.
To suggest so is to lie. Prevaricate. Make Shit Up. A journalist (and a so-called "comprof" assuming short for communications professor) should never do such things.
No, it is not "Lying."
Being audited at 5x the rate than wealthy people. So, the "truth is the truth." You just don't like the language choice used to describe that truth.
"To suggest so is to lie"......yeah, you might REALLY, REALLY want to think about that.....especially considering the media you probably consume.
Lol. Honestly, I think you're just upset that someone pointed out that poor people were getting the short end of the stick, being treated differently, etc. That right there, is the truth.
In fact, I did write to the Times and they tried to justify it by pointing to the one fact (more poor people are audited) but I responded in saying that "look at the context to where this is taken. It suggests something the opposite of "targeting." For two people from the Times to respond means they took it seriously-- I'm glad about that. I've taught research skills at USC so I am hyper critical of publications that "cherry pick" as I am with my students who do the same. It's enough that it's done by politicians but respected newspapers should be above that (should).
When there is no other fact but ONE (i.e. more poor people are audited) -you can't "cherry pick" when you only have ONE fact under discussion.
It's called "framing," (Goffman, E.) - its an offshoot of the Mass Communication media theory known as "Agenda Setting."
Yes, the suggestion of something opposite of "targeting" would be....a different frame.
If anyone is interested, I unrolled and collated all five batches of Twitter Files. Much easier to read:
https://euphoricrecall.substack.com/p/twitter-files-part-i-ii-iii-iv-and
Thanks Brad
Thank you.
Yeah I mean it’s a bad sign that the evidence proving Joe Biden is owned by Chinese Communists is derisively referred to as “Hunter’s Laptop”.
As if it matters whose laptop the evidence is on. What if we found OJ’s bloody glove in his neighbor Susan’s yard? Would we call it “Susan’s Yard” or would we just say that OJ killed his wife?
It's annoying that all the reporting about Hunter Biden's laptop has focused almost exclusively on the prurient content on it and on Twitter's fumblling response in the teeth of the election. There has been pretty much nothing about the only story that should matter - which is whether Joe Biden was implicit i some sort of crime. The fact that nothing definitive has come out about this speaks volumes
Joe Biden started a natural gas business, complete with office space, with a Chinese Communist spy who has since been killed.
That’s on the laptop. His name is Gongwen Dong. They leased office space. This shit is totally documented.
I am confused about what crime you are alleging Joe Biden committed here - are you claiming he murdered someone?
"As if it matters whose laptop the evidence is on....."
Hmmm....sounds like you're moving the goalposts.
Looking forward to the investigation, though.
Dude....seriously....re-work your OJ analogy.....I mean, now that I explained to you what an analogy is a few days ago.
Ah, but OJ "didn't" kill his wife. A jury said so.
Now you understand why narrative matters.
But you like when juries come to other types of decisions, right?
Now you understand why consistency matters.
Not jury nullification, no.
Incidents of Jury Nullification are relatively rare - and usually come about for three reasons, bad law without the consent of the governed, and/or bigotry against the accused/accuser.
Assuming you don't believe that prohibition of murder is a bad law without the consent of the people of California...
But there was no jury nullification in the OJ trial. So, irrelevant.
It's also important to keep track of coverage at Wikipedia whose editors you can watch on the history page of "The Twitter Files." They often delete citations to any stories not in corporate media.
I wrote about that here:
New Tsars like the Old Tsars
The "Twitter Files" - Landmark Moment in the Annals of Speech.
https://kathleenmccook.substack.com/p/new-tsars-like-the-old-tsars
“All the news that’s fit to print” has never been the modus operandi of the New York Times. From the NYT’s support of National Socialism in the 1930s to today’s support for woke fascism, the NY Times’ M.O. has always been “All the news that fits, we print”.
Similarly, WaPo's motto, "Democracy dies in darkness" has always sounded to me like a threat, not something they intended to prevent.
You made me laugh with your truism. It's not a threat. It is a road map.
Everything probably sounds like a threat to you.
Clever but not really true. They don't print anything that doesn't further their agenda. Ignoring a story is often more effective than trying to discredit it.
That’s true. The New York Times furthers its toxic agenda both with crimes of commission and crimes of omission.
^our narrative, we print
Well put.
Independent journalism paired with an open platform: stuff the progressives fear (for they cannot control it).
Wikipedia's reporting on "The Twitter Files."
Librarians need to take Wikipedia seriously
It's all about citations.
https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/librarians-need-to-take-wikipedia
Media needs money to survive and to make money they need to satisfy their base. All media organizations peddle to their base, nothing new, not sure why this is so surprising.
What I don't understand is a news outlet is a for profit entity. The more readers the greater the profit. If a news outlet panders to only one side of the political spectrum, they lose about 40% of their readers or in CNN's case viewers. It is beyond explanation how Fox thrives. Maybe it is because even the loon left wants to hear and see another view of the world.
What I am saying, you don't piss off half the population with partisan BS and thrive. These big news outlets are supposed to be run by smart people but they sure don't follow a capitalist paradigm.
Fox has a gigantic and unwavering daily-viewer base of democrats.
Fox thrives for the same reason that LibsOfTikTok is so popular: people these days are always eager to watch their enemies make fools of themselves. It helps reinforce their bubble.
What Celia said. And the US market is roughly split in the middle (Surprise!) the outlets are happy if most of their coverage satisfies their half.
How did that work out for CNN? NYT and WaPo are laying off people. I guess half an audience just isn't enough for them.
"It is beyond explanation how Fox thrives. Maybe it is because even the loon left wants to hear and see another view of the world."
-DING!! DING!!! DING!!!!.......hmmmm.....maybe not trapped in their "echo chambers?" and actually have passports.....unlike you?
It's not surprising that a media company would peddle to its base. What is surprising is that media companies remain devoted to peddling a message that a large chunk of their supposed base is rejecting, based on their cratering ratings. Maybe they are not solely driven by a profit motive?
No,no,no! The New York Times has never been “All the news that’s fit to print”. From it’s support of Hitler’s National Socialists in the 1930s to the woke fascists of today, the NYT’s modus operandi has always been “All the news that fits, we print”.
Newspapers that don’t cover the news will die.
WHEN?
It can't be too soon for me.
WPO, NYT, CNN, MSNBC et al all steadily losing engagement and DYING. Ironically, Trump’s running again was a lifeline for them, but it won’t last.
Brad....fascinating....really....
However, how do we get over the hurdle that a private company has the right to do what they want to do as far as content moderation, etc. Twitter is FiLLEd WiTH LibRULs who don't like Trump!
Ok....get your conservative buddies together, move to Silicon Valley, raise money from VCs and start your own platform.
Social media has become so ubiquitous among consumers/public that people actually think they have a Constitutional Right to have a Twitter account or have their tweet trend.
At the end of the day, all ultimate decisions were made by Twitter, not the government.
Okay, a cake maker refuses to create a special cake because doing so breaks the baker's religious convictions. So, Leftists, get a group of fellow Leftists and start your own cake-bakery. Both sides can play the role of useless idiot, that's easy. However, when it comes to 1st amendment rights, there's no room for negotiations-more speech is always better than less speech. Of course unpopular speech needs protecting, not popular speech. Lastly, the evidence is piling on top of evidence: the government said "jump" and social media said "how high?"
Sam, how do you force a corporate entity like Twitter or Facebook to publish your tweet or post? If they suspend your account what do you do? Sue them? You’ll be laughed out of court.
You can’t force a private concern to protect your First Amendment rights - because it is within their First Amendment right to treat its content as they see fit.
And if they accede to an agency of the gov’t, something they were not obligated to do, that is their right too.
Thank you.
THIS is what happens we people grow up with a cell phone permanently attached to their hand. A social media platform becomes "the public square," people are pulling off "digital coups" and I have a Constitutional Right to not only HAVE a Twitter account, but my tweets better TREND TOO, DAMMIT!
It's almost like.....dare I say it?.....they all want "digital participation trophies."
Yep, that's EXACTLY what you should do. Go to another bakery, start your own, etc.
The invisible hand of the free market solves all, right? That's what Conservatives and St. Reagan told us.
See this is what happens when people grow up inundated/addicted to social media, they call a platform that only about 23% of Americans use "the public square" and they legitimately believe they have a Constitutional Right to a Twitter account and to have their tweets trend, if not it's a "1st amendment rights" issue.
Rightest and leftist both tried to influence Twitter, sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they didn't.
Who cares if the media said "How high?" That is not "evidence," of anything dude. It's evidence of a private company making a decision on what they want to do. The can jump high, low, sideways, whatever. Ultimately, Twitter makes all the decisions.
Now, personally I would like to see ZERO content moderation. ALL SPEECH allowed. Every Fuentes, every Black Black Nationalists, every Anti-Semite, deranged lunatic, conspiracy theorists, deep fake videos, false emergency warnings, etc. - that way everyone can finally shut up once and for all about Twitter.
Your knowledge level of important events is hopelessly low, it’s no wonder your ability to arrive at a reasonable conclusion failed. James Baker, the fired former chief attorney for the FBI/DOJ during the Russia hoax, the Mueller Witch-hunt, & impeachments 1 and 2, was days ago vetting Twitter Files, and is suspected to have prevented documents unhelpful to Democrats before Musk showed the corrupt cop the door. Government is prohibited from abridging the Rights provided to Americans by the Constitution. That prohibition includes using 3rd parties as a workaround to avoid violating the law. The evidence of Democratic Party criminality its shocking anyone with a sense of decency would continue supporting the Dems. Dumb & Democrats are synonymous.
Your knowledge level, across the board, is hopelessly low.
Sigh....once again....Twitter is not required to report/allow anything.....or required to NOT report/allow anything.
SO WHAT if if Twitter hired James Baker? - THE. ARE. A. PRIVATE. COMPANY. THEY. CAN. HIRE. WHO. THEY. WANT.
Was James Baker currently still employed by the U.S. Government, or acting as chief attorney for the FBI/DOJ while he was vetting the TwItTer FiLes ? Yes or No?
You do not have a Constitutional Right to a Twitter account or to have your tweet trend. You also do not have a 1A right to a digital participation trophy.
Twitter can "collude" with WHOMEVER THEY WANT. UNDERSTAND? Same goes for Musk and "New" Twitter. Hell, if Musk wants to sell it to Vladamir Putin, Kim Jong-un or Jair Bolsanaro, he can.
So, you can screech and tail-bite all you want. Those are simply the facts.
Once a member of the IC always a member of the IC. Can you prove James Baker was not working for the Democratic Party-dominated federal government? Why anyone with a brain would cheer for this kind of 3rd-world banana republic government corruption is beyond gross. Don't you know people who treat political opponents with such disdain will never hesitate to turn against the useful idiots, that's you, who remain complicit with these crimes. This is no longer a Right vs Left, Blue vs Red, or Dem vs Rep. This fight is us versus them. Which side are you on? Traitor.
Correct.
That is why anti-trust legislation exists. When a company becomes so dominant that it can no longer be subjected to the normalizing influence of competition, and it uses that dominance for nefarious ends, then the marketplace has failed and it is now a matter for the courts.
Hence Standard Oil and AT&T were both broken up to provide breathing space for competitors. Clearly the old Twitter was just such a monopoly and it’s nefarious acts included denying access to the public square to anyone who didn’t serve the interests of their overlords, the Democratic Party and the pharmaceutical industry. The new Twitter remains dominant, but hopefully nefarious and monopolistic behaviour are abominations of the past.
Uh...there are lots of other social media platforms out there.
See, when someone gets so addicted/surrounded by social media, they wind up calling Twitter "the public square" and a private company making choices "nefarious acts" or creating concepts like "digital coup."
And comparing Standard Oil & AT&T, companies that provide services that are absolutely vital to an economy/country, to a social media platform where people post memes and talk about "Milf Manor," is probably not the strongest choice.
The bottom line of your argument, once you sweep away all the bad historical analogies and political agita, is pretty simple and clear: You think people have a Constitutional Right right to a Twitter account and for their Tweets to trend.
Personally, I hope there is ZERO content moderation - of ANYTHING. ALL SPEECH allowed. So everyone can finally stop talking about Twitter.
I think we may be in violent agreement, except that doxxing individuals and their families is a precursor to violence against those with whom you disagree. There is a sweet spot between giving a megaphone to everyone, including criminals, and the kind of ideological censorship that was the standard for the old Twitter. My hope is that Elon Musk is finding that sweet spot.
Sure, "violent agreement" works, except I want doxxing allowed, too.
He's banning journalists. Punk ass Elon also banned someone that was tracking his private plane. Why?!!
Shouldn't be out flying in public, Elon!!
No. Uh-uh. I don't want to hear from "Doxxers" about how their 1A rights are being violated because they're not on Twitter or complaining that their tweets about someone's kids school location and class schedule isn't trending.
There is only one sweet spot: ZERO CONTENT MODERATION/EVERYTHING ALLOWED!
So hopefully, everyone can finally break free of the totalitarian oppression of a phone app and shut the f*ck up about Twitter.
Would you be comfortable if I presented your home address, your employer, your wife's name and occupation, children's names and ages, their schools, your travel schedule... all on Twitter, along with an aggressive and critical rant? Maybe you have less to lose, and that's why you're comfortable with unlimited doxxing. A town square is where people can attack the message, not the messenger.
Democrats have been captured by extreme Leftists who possess a level of contempt for our founding principals, who disregard the rule of law when they disagree with the law in question, and who are fully invested in the big government, all-powerful, nanny state.
Yes. Good thing Trump now controls the GOP.
Brad, why is this the 'biggest story of the year'?
Perhaps that's the reason mass media companies aren't diving into it. A private platform denies access to users either by their own moderating algorithm or because they're told by gov't sources to dampen comments they thought were disinformation. It stinks but so what. Twitter had the right to not cooperate with the bad boys, or to accede to the request. Which they did. They're private! They're First Amendment protected! They have the right to decide to do just that. Big deal. It's only one corporate platform out of many.
Now there's Parler and Truth Social. There's probably more. Will they cave when Biden's wokies comes around? Who knows. They're still around with a very high conservative content.
Is there corporate censorship? Yes! Absolutely yes! So what do you do?
Find another corporation.
When a private company allows the government to censor, that’s a violation of the first amendment. Had they done it on their own, it would not have been. It’s the government insinuating themselves into this that’s the problem and unconstitutional.
Twitter could have, and arguably should have, denied their request. It was within their right as a private entity to do so. And if they had, what would the Gov't had done? Fine them? Sue them? Imprison them? Now you have your unconstitutionality.
Exactly.
Lee, as soon as Twitter began taking directives from the Biden Administration, through the FBI, they are no-longer private. They've become an agent of the state.
"They're private" is not a reasonable basis to shrug off the fact that they lied repeatedly, and possibly under oath in DC hearings, about not doing exactly what they were doing. Few contest Twitter's authority to blacklist and suppress. But being lied to about it is good reason to be disgusted with former Twitter high mucky mucks.
So true. We now know that the old Twitter was the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, directed by the government. That denies them the defense of “But we’re a private company”. It didn’t work for IG Farben at the Nuremburg trials, and it won’t work for Dorsey and company.
Fair points. Conventional wisdom suggests that Big Tech companies are free to "moderate content" because they're private and the 1st Amendment only protects against government censorship. But Twitter ceases to be a private company and becomes a state actor when it does the bidding of the federal government. Using a combination of statutory inducements, regulatory threats, and partisan back scratching, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.
It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”
The Twitter Files shows smoking gun proof of the federal government colluding with the platform to silence dissent.
Moreover, Twitter is (in my opinion) the most important information platform there is, so integral has it become to political discourse. It's the de facto town square, the modern agora. I could go into way more detail about this by linking to a past essay I've written about Twitter, but I've already linked to my substack too many times as it is, and I'll save you the boredom.
Smart response.
But you use the 'town square' defence. As in a recent Texas State Court ruling. Of which I disagree. Twitter is no town square. It appears that way because so many people use it.
A real town square belongs to no one. You stand on your stump and speak - often to no one. It is a real public place, owned by a public entity - and there in lies the difference.
Twitter is not a publicly owned space. It is owned either by one man (now) or shareholders (the old version). Since when does any corporate concern feel beholden to all subscribers for free and unfettered access? They allow content or disallow it. Here for example on the the Free Press they allow all content (for now). It is a corporate choice. And we are here to enjoy it. And if this place changes, we can move on.
You state that Twitter ceases to be a private company and becomes a state actor once it does the government's bidding. And this is new? I have examples in my mind where 60 Minutes held stories because of gov't concerns. NYT as well. Time Magazine too.
Why were the Watergate revelations so important back in 1973? Because finally an American news organization went against government pressure. It took guts. It didn't happen normally. It was never a given - most American journalism was passive, timid.
Twitter caved. They censored. That's true. But that is simply a decision they made. They could have gone the other way.
And as for dissent? It's still here.
Where we disagree most is on the importance of Twitter. For the record, I hate the platform and think it's a social sewer. And this is all just my opinion. But I think the platform has far more of an impact in shaping reality than most people realize because it's the playground of elites, who have the biggest influence on the discourse and narratives society uses to make sense of itself.
It follows, then, that if a group (say, for example, a political party) holds inordinate influence/control over the medium where our society’s most important discourse happens, that group is in a position to adjudicate the bounds of acceptable content and therefore possesses an extraordinary degree of influence over which ideas gain traction.
Also, while people use Twitter for a variety of reasons, it’s evolved into a global PA system thanks to its most singular feature: the retweet. The retweet function is a force multiplier, the fastest way to simultaneously spread and endorse information. And it’s frictionless. A tweet by itself is basically a text message, except instead of one-to-one, it's one-to-many; but when you add in the retweet function, no communication platform can compete. It's why I believe that, even with dozens of alternative mediums available for use, no other independent channel of information holds as much potential for radical ideological change on a mass scale.
It sure looks like the town square. Looks like common carrier too. I like town square more but it's the taller hill to hike.
Gov't intervening in the dealings of a private company is neither nor proper. Just because the gov't violates the law frequently and in the same way over time with many different businesses is no defense for nefarious conduct.
Can you imagine?
Mobster: Sure I've been extorting this neighborhood but we've been doing it for years.
Judge: Case dismissed.
You can’t choose mobsters. But a social media company who moderates against your will and plays games with the government?
You have the choice to move on.
Your defense was, basically, ~everybody knows they've been doing this forever.~
The issue was the claimed defense not the specific players. I changed the players (to make the point more vivid) but applied the same defense. That's fair game. Defenses are not specific to the category of defendant. What is available to Peter is available to Paul.
We have many cell phone carriers. No one needs to have a cell phone. But what if Verizon decided to monitor calls and prevent texting and calls without your knowledge, because they didn't like what you were saying. And the only carriers you could subscribe to have very poor coverage and don't always connect to who you wanted. Would that be right? We are already seeing many companies just stop serving people because of what they believe. We even have Christians being kicked out of restaurants. No one covers that, but if it was anyone in a protected group, it would be all over the news and the restaurant would be out of business.
Your example sounds like PayPal denying financial service because of political bias. Totally illegal.
But Twitter’s product is the public dissemination of conversation, modulated by their First Amendment rights.
Legal.
Thanks, Brad. Elegantly explained.
I used to think that too. It took me awhile to realize I was wrong. As soon as an organization starts to do business with the government it's no longer an independent agent operating in a free market. At that point they are not really private.
The importance of the story is not that they "denied access" to users. It is that they LIED about it - to Congress UNDER OATH, and to their unflavored users, who they were happy to monetize while not providing the full service to all. To respond to your misinformation comment, I refer you to Unwoke in Idaho (below) who explains doing the Government's censorship for it is not the right of a public company.
We're treating Twitter as if it's God's gift to free speech in the electronic age. It emphatically is not. It can be replaced, and probably will be as soon as we stop typing. It is NOT the only platform out there! It is not the only organ of communication in the ether.
People will go somewhere else if it's deemed to be compromised.
Lee, have you not noticed that we do not live in a free country anymore. All of our institutions are woke controlled. Thousands have already lost jobs, livelihoods, reputation and even their freedom. And this is accelerating. You will never know this because all mainstream news is controlled. I believe hiding behind the "private company" defense of Twitter and all powerful tech companies is inappropriate today. And I am an entrepreneur who believes in laissez-faire capitalism. But the tech giants in alliance with our woke government and all other American institutions have obliterated FREE ENTERPRISE and FREE SPEECH. It is clear they believe in neither. Sure some small business and free speech is available for woke apologists to point to. But in the context of where America is at today, they are examples for a fantasyland perspective.
It's not just about the people on Twitter. Twitter has the power to influence politics, businesses, doxing, and most aspects of our lives. People change decisions based on the response on Twitter and that can effect many lives.
If people (us) entrust so much confidence in a private concern such as Twitter - then shame on us.
We cannot force Twitter to make sure their influence on us is benign.
That’s on us. We gave them that power - and they can tweak that as they like.
Well said!
Late Thursday, reporters from publications including the Washington Post, the New York Times, Mashable and CNN were listed as blocked and their tweets were no longer visible. Musk said the suspended profiles, which included sports and political commentator Keith Olbermann, were of people who had posted his real-time location, describing the information as “basically assassination coordinates.”
So let me get this straight. You're bitching because some imperious journos blatantly broke a rule that results in a suspension, for which they were suspended?
Does Musk believe in free speech or not?
He has suspended dozens of journalists who criticize him and hundred of leftist accounts at the request of Andy Ngo.
Free speech warrior or “welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss. We won’t be fooled again.”
Sorry for The Who reference it is probably too old for you: you can google for it.
The Who - very applicable..
Wait, are you seriously trying to argue against the suspension of antifa accounts that perpetrated violence? Dude, you're embarrassing yourself.
Is he in favor of free speech or isn’t he?
No one has to accept people posting their whereabouts...the Left has been posting addresses to harass and threaten people as a tactic. It shouldn't just be something that Twitter blocks. It should be illegal in my opinion. It's disgusting behavior and it's a threat. Threats are not okay and threats are not free. Speech. Posting someone's current address so that people can find them and possibly hurt them is a threat. And everyone knows it. Everyone knows why addresses are being revealed. And if you deny that then you just want people hurt. I'm sure you'll think it's okay unless it happens to you and your family and your children.
Why don't you ask him.
Name a single account that he's suspended for criticizing him.
https://twitter.com/CNNPR/status/1603579612612665344?s=20&t=xSEtdOq_8Kqne2FjkM3sSA
Literally suspended for doxxing. This is not complicated.
How about "The Most Trusted Name in News" or "Join the Conversation". LOL
"Fair and Balanced."
Take it from someone whose family fled Communism: Freedom of speech, along with due process, is the bedrock of a functioning democracy. Twitter’s censorship is antithetical to the values that made America a superpower. I’m glad to see these files being put out. I'm glad that writers like me can freely express our opinions online on sites like Substack. It reminds me and other immigrants to this great country that democracy is still worth fighting for.
It takes the clarity of vision from someone who was raised outside the U.S. to wake us up, or at least some of us, from our woke stupor. The mainstream media is panicking: what if people thought for themselves? What if their readers found more credible sources of information? What if the shepherds of thought began to lose their flock?
Yeah. It's sad to see America slide into authoritarianism after hundreds of years as a proud democracy. "Cancel culture" is just the beginning of America's own woke Cultural Revolution.
Well said.
Sorry to put a damper on things, Sheluyang. So I take it you're somewhat new here (or not). Okay. If you were to go back I'd say eighty to a hundred years ago right here in free speech lovin' USA, you would find publishers like William Randolph Hearst, Henry Luce (and there were many more..) who decided by fiat who to publish and who not to, what to report and what not to, what to conceal and what not to, who readily acceded to US Gov't requests to slant their political stories or to not publish stories at all. And Americans at that time all bought it, hook, line and sinker.
I do not condone that. I decry that.
But the point I'm attempting to make is that what we're seeing at Twitter/Facebook is nothing new, or surprising, nor (as so many here are saying, breathlessly), the end of free speech as we know it. It is not. We've seen this all before. And we survived it.
I would go as far to say that we are better off now than ever before because of the radical and disruptive nature of the Internet and social media itself. There's more free speech now than before in this country's history simply because there are far more (exponentially more) media platforms to peruse, use, read, and join. With little to no gatekeepers, unlike in the 20th century.
We had a three channel universe as recently as only forty years ago. There are thousands of channels now.
Feel free to express your opinions. Feel free to expect that you can in the future. We're doing it here right now. That's a positive, not a negative.
There are far too many of us.
I agree that the media has always had a bias or a financial interest in what to publish or what to hold back, but readers and viewers were mostly in the dark and didn't question the integrity of the NY Times or CBS. Ignorance is bliss. However, now that we are inundated with the good, the bad, and the ugly 24/7 it's caused us to question all of it. The reality that maybe much of what we are reading or seeing is only half the truth or possibly even "fake" is waking us up to be more discerning.
You are spot on. It has always been like this. Where do you think the term yellow journalism came from?
But so much of the response to the Twitter Files is close to apocalyptic (at least here). I'm just saying we'll survive, freedoms intact.
I was born in Los Angeles in 1947, and lived all of my life in Calif but now own another home in a safer, more red state as a Plan B. LA is a dystopia which people are fleeing. Or like me have a Plan B home in a red state. I know this from talking to countless friends and others who have fled or are preparing to flee. And reading the understated mainstream stats. I have seen much too much including talks with very senior LA police officers. I have many friends who have fled totalitarian countries, and they all confirm America is heading swiftly into totalitarianism. Only these woke tyrants have enough control of the means of propaganda and tech to make someone as bright as you think all will be well.
My hero is my wife's father who insisted his very frightened young wife escape the Warsaw ghetto with him - just in time. Most Jews in Europe simply could not believe how serious the situation was. The control the woke have over America is overwhelming. If freedom returns to us, it will be after an awful struggle. But it is no longer very likely.
Your post is heartfelt, Dennies.
All is not well, I concur . And the new mayor of LA has a huge mountain to climb. As do other mayors of large cities.
I look at it as a pendulum. It’s swinging left now, especially re crime, homelessness, immigration and drug abuse.
Make no mistake, millions of liberals feel the same as you. I do.
The pendulum has no choice but to slowly swing back right. And it will, because citizens no matter their political stripe will not accept anymore what’s happening on the ground.
I am not as pessimistic as you, but I respect where you’re coming from.
Lee-- I think you may be right. I, a former liberal Democrat, have become a moderate Democrat due to the failings of my liberal state government. I have also seen such sadness on the streets of LA and such horror in many of the schools where I work in Watts and Compton. So my pendulum has swung, like many of my friends.
Those Old Boys who insisted that the new Constitution have a written Bill of Rights were well aware of its importance, and were it not for the First Amendment (backed by the Second), we would I believe already be beyond hope - another of Solzhenitsyn's gulags. My reading suggests that you are right on the money about the European Jews' innocence about the Nazi plan for them. Thanks to modern communication - Substack and this blog in particular - many of us now are not.
It is possible to wake up the masses. As I browse the Internets each day I see the ship slowly turning 'round. Will it be in time? Don't know.
I share a bit of the same feeling since I live in LA and am looking to move soon. When I was at CVS 6 weeks ago, it was robbed right in front of all of us and the young security guard. It was 4 PM. The manager told us that it happens "every day." But it's too dangerous for any of them to confront the thieves because they may have a gun. Typically, they lose $30,000 worth of merchandise a week. Then-- a couple of weeks ago, it happened again while I was waiting to pick up a prescription. A guy (looking like the kid from Breaking Bad) came in grabbed boxes of some meds. then stumbled and fell onto the floor and scrambled to pick the 30 or so boxes and stuff them into his pants and hoodie, while we all just watched not sure what to do. Myself and the others waiting in line commented that life is getting much worse if this is the norm.
LA is simply not sustainable in a civilized mode. Stay safe.
True.
But we could not have had this discussion on old Twitter, that's the point.
I politely would like to point out in 1850 New York City had 53 newspapers. By 1900 it still had 15 and that these spanned the political and social landscape.
Yes in the 1970s there were the 3 big networks and PBS for news so it was limited in choice.
What I think you fail to account for is that both newspapers in 1800s and 1900s came out once to at most twice a day and with that space limit there was a limit on how much yellow journalism was possible. Sure you had Hearst pushing war, but only once a day.
In the 1970s Walter Cronkite had 1-2 hours a day for news so even the most important stories got maybe 10 minutes a day. For the most part Cronkite tried to not comment on the news - not perfectly but much better than today.
Then came 24 hour news with CNN. And since you had 24 hours to fill, the stories got more and more air time and the anchors got more time to talk about them and present more than just the facts.
I do not think we are better off today because we have more and more outlets of news at our fingertips from all sides and are constantly barraged by mixed stories and opinions. I think it is making us into Roddy McDowall in a Clockwork Orange, creating emotional reactions in us that are outside our controls. We are being made tribal by what we choose to read or watch.
My hope is Free Press is a place I can come to for news and not feel like my eyelids are being held open with pins forcing me to listen to the left or the right.
Good comment.
I am not a fan of the biased aspects of social media (and mass media, as well), it is a large problem (and growing) - and miss often the gatekeeping of an earlier era.
Point well made, Tom.
I recall in the early days of chat rooms, some of the big media outlets had discussion forums on their websites. The networks soon learned of a vociferous public body who was well aware of their slanted narratives. There were many posts directing criticism at the journalists themselves, inviting them to engage in the public forum to discuss certain, er, well "discrepencies" between events personally witnessed by participants, and the reports coming down from the media. An actual comment from a reporter was extremely rare. For the most part the comments were officially ignored.
Eventually, all of the networks shut down the public forums on their sites, often without any warning or notice to participants. One day a forum was there, the next it was gone. No comment or parting message. Whole groups of kindred spirits simply cast asunder like chaff. That was when I realized that the networks knew they were wrong, and that public forum would be the best means to expose Media Bias. I just never expected it would take this long. This was 20 or so years ago.
I agree with this and believe it to be factually accurate. However, thew new tools and technology available today makes a biased thumb on the scale much more dangerous and impactful.
Bias at scale is a whole, new situation.
Lee Morris, but newspapers that long ago (thinking 100-150 y/a) were often of a similar model to UK papers. They were sponsored by political organizations with a clear bias. They pandered and propagandized. The movement toward straight news started around 80 years ago (that doesn't mean they were content neutral - clearly they were not). That newspapers aspired to objective truth in reporting as their business model is the exception not the rule. They still claim that model but routinely ignore it.
Agreed.
My favorite Jewish Justice said it perfectly: “...sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman” ~~~ 1913 Harper’s Weekly article, entitled “What Publicity Can Do.”
Everyone talks around the horror driven reality of the monstrous IMF/WEF/CCP juggernaut responsible for thought crime and free speech arrests in Great Britain and the assault on farmers in the Netherlands. British councils are now attempting to impose travel permits limiting movement and restricting citizens to designated 'zones'. How long can we ignore reports on the distorted application of the newly expanded euthanasia laws in Canada? Social credit scores? Where exactly is the line of demarcation between the free man and the slow boiled toad in the worldwide corporate controlled bureaucratic surveillance state?
Their price gouging, supply chain manipulating, we'll reduce the world to a cinder if we don't get our way reality makes it clears that the thugs have compromised American elected political leadership. And, let me say this again: The avarice of sycophants like Gates, Schwab and the Clinton's has moved the political squarely into the pathological. Insane megalomaniacal narcissism is enslaving the world. It represents a soulless, anti-human sterility, attempting the reduction of human beings to cyber thingdom. It is the same feudal, cold in the head, heartless, totalitarian, life destroying, cheap labor, resource exploiting, no consequences for me grift that has been murdering us for centuries. This time it is masked as "we love you and the planet so much" environmentalism. The LIE is totally transparent and yet--there it is. How?
We have entered a new age and it is demanding a new Consciousness. The vision of a viable human future is no longer beyond, it is within each of us. And we are in an open war. The fight is and has always been on Consciousness. America is ill and so are Americans. Fentanyl, gutted industry,a looted economy, homelessness, political graft and the ten thousand other cuts slow bleeding our prosperity and future can only be stopped by us. If we use Orwell and Solzhenitsyn to pinch the American psyche in our fight against the ascending totalitarian numbness, it is also time to reconnect and feed ourselves, and each other, with Wang Wei, Sandberg and the deep nourishment of the human culture countless people across the world, and across our living history, gave their lives to create. We are the answer we seek. And, the cavalry ain't coming.
The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights it contains is the only engine of human survival.
Act while you still have one.
Marxist 'woke' is the lipstick on a pig named Totalitarian Finance.
Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. --Benjamin Franklin 1737 -- still true today.
Being a physician and scientist did not inform my first impression that Covid-19 may have originated in a level 4 virology lab in Wuhan. I began looking seriously at the behavior of the virus in February 2020 when TWITTER kicked ZeroHedge (a financial site with 670K followers) off the platform for reporting on a likely lab leak instead of animal (at that time Pangolin, now debunked) reservoir and transmission to humans of this bat virus. How did Twitter know this was disinformation in February 2020? Ignorance or intentional? Twitter had said “those who engage in coordinated attempts to spread disinformation at scale about coronavirus issue will be removed from service.” And that was that. Now that it is clear that "operative" twitter employees of all sorts were privy to open and DM data inside of twitter, there is no doubt in my mind that ZeroHedge was not kicked off for disinformation, but rather for "real information" that the CCP (and likely our own government bureaucrats) did not want our citizens to see. It was a threat lobbed at any who might want to question the origin of the virus. This is not just suppression of free speech, but a crime scene indeed. I hope one of the investigative reporters is following this sinister trail.
I'm still in absolute shock that social media rolled out its censorship program by silencing people warning about COVID, because "the WHO has not yet declared it a pandemic."
Their censorship of the truth directly influenced public policy in a way that left the country unprepared for catastrophe, and half of the country thought that was fine and that social media should also censor qualified scientists, or anybody whatsoever who contradicts Democrat propaganda.
I don't think there is a single principle on which this country was founded that Democrats are not actively working to undermine and destroy.
Now we getting closer to the truth Anthony, I’m not surprised that it has come from you. The Democrats had to get rid of President Trump, they had been trying to since his inauguration. Covid was a perfect storm for them. The rest as they say is history. We have 2 years to take America back please God we can!
Anthony, please. The first year of Covid, or close to it, was under a Republican President. Remember his daily press conferences?
You're saying we were 'unprepared for catastrophe'. You are right. I'm sure the three prior administrations were to blame - of which two were GOP.
Let's spread the blame. Just a little bit.
Lee Morris, please. There is a very powerful and influential group of people called The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whose entire purpose of existence is to prevent and control disease.
These people pushed trash science, Chinese propaganda, nonsense policies, and harsh punishment for anybody who speaking out for the truth.
The blame for an out of control disease we failed to prevent is 100% on The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Which is overwhelmingly Democrat, especially in its leadership, along with the leadership of other federal health agencies.
Mike Pence was one of the only people in the entire government who actually had a competent response. While the CDC rolled out a disastrously failed testing program, Pence used the FDA to cut red tape and go around them to get millions of tests underway. The CDC were furious. That was when the CDC press conferences said "we aren't seeing evidence of community spread" - because their testing program was a failure and they had no eyes on the ground.
Meanwhile I ran around Seattle for two month warning everybody who would listen to stop travelling to major events, while the locals told me I wasn't an expert and the Democrat media publicly declared me a "right wing conspiracy theorist" for warning people about the virus.
At the time, Joe Biden was publicly advocating for allowing the virus over the border. "Don't listen to Trump's hysterical, xenophobic fear mongering" was the exact quote.
And he got elected president.
You can't fix that kind of stupidity.
I'm not saying the CDC were saints, or even competent. They were probably more wrong than right - but of course 20/20 hindsight does help. They turned themselves into pretzels on masks, against them, for them. School lockdowns, no. Then yes, Then no again. Then yes. It was a fifty state fuck up. Right?
If you were warning about the virus early on, good on you. You were being responsible, and prescient.
Pence was right - and even Trump (I hate saying it), he got a fast track vaccine in place (and I don't know how you feel about that).
But being unprepared as a country? Both parties own that.
And are we unprepared for the next one? Yep.
Just my opinion.
Lee Morris,
You are correct. Both Democrats and Republicans, even President Trump, allowed the Pharmaceutical industry to take over control. I was shocked that Trump allowed Fauci to remain in a position of authority. That alone made me lose faith in Trump during the pandemic. I now support DeSantis as the current front runner.
Blame will not get us anywhere. We must demand an investigation. This transcends partisan politics. This political divide is another product of our esteemed media "watchdogs", all of whom are "Brought to you by Pfizer".
A true grass roots outcry will be needed. Media will not cover it. Perhaps online, on Twitter, et al.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuL6bSb8diQ
He was criticizing liberal control of social media not any administration. Conservatives were not and do not dominate social media administration. The left does and they were happy to block tweets and accounts that challenged their hegemony on the "truth."
I have read that Dr. Fauci's daughter was employed at Twitter during the height of the pandemic.
Just curious. Can you cite the source for that piece of information?
There are lots. I am sure some will question the sources but no defamation suits have been filed and she is not a "public person" so should have the benefit of that protection if it is not true. The deposition referred to was late November, 2022 and he said she had left Twitter "over a year ago" so that mean she was there during a critical period. She was a software engineer and my impression.is that she was at Twitter well before the covid outbreak.
https://thepostmillennial.com/faucis-daughter-worked-for-twitter-during-pandemic-deposition-reveals
https://nationalfile.com/faucis-daughter-ali-fauci-is-a-software-engineer-for-twitter/
I still don’t know what possible motive our Fed govt could have “hiding” the origins of the virus....we had already unfriended China, so their loyalty wasn’t a motive. I think maybe people exaggerate the importance of Covid origins. Scientifically, it’s important, but as a social/political tool, I don’t get it. The issue is overhyped.
1. China researching gain of function in viruses, funded partly by the U.S.
2. Virus escapes lab in Wuhan, infecting billions and killing millions worldwide.
3. Draconian response globally basically stops the world economy for a year.
If the above are true, how could anyone UNDER exaggerate Covid origins?
Plus to this day we do not know what it is and what it is designed to do.
Even the vaccine is crap Lynne. The legacy media says otherwise.
The stated purpose is to be able to predict the next pandemic and to prepare a vaccine for it in advance. That has been proven to be unfeasible. It is impossible to predict what natural virus will appear next. Scientists have challenged the feasibility of gain-of-function for the stated purpose.
The only known use for it so far is to produce viruses that do not appear in nature. AKA Biowarfare with the added benefit to Big Pharma. They did a hasty cleanup and sent us the bill. Billions.
Think of the BP spill. Would we pay BP to clean it up? Now think over 5 billion dead and the entire planet affected. The single biggest man made environmental disaster in history. No oil spill has ever affected so many so severely.
This needs to be halted immediately. At a minimum it should never be done in the midst of a crowded city. Unless of course you want the inhabitants to be used as your proof of concept.
I fully agree. We need to take a hard look at medical and scientific ethics. IMO we need to determine what kind of world we want and what tinkering with it will and will not be allowed. And this is not a left/right issue. Obama banned gain-of-function and the odious Fauci funded it anyway. He says he did not know but if he really did not he should have. The Chinese and Russians scare me. The Chinese have already produced a human chimera that survived 8 days. Who knows what the Russians are doing now but they have performed genetic experiments for decades.
Because American taxpayers paid for it.
Pfizer opened an R&D lab in the Wuhan research center in 2009. Pfizer is the biggest sponsor of nightly news. Pfizer is one of the largest contributors to political campaigns, both Democrat or Republican. Gain of Function is done for the benefit of Pharmaceutical companies. Who would bite the hand that feeds them?
In my humble opinion, blaming China is not taking into account that Gain of Function research was conceived to benefit the Pharmaceutical industry. The Pharma people were in a cooperative effort with the Chinese Scientists. The "lab leak" if it happened, could just as easily come from the Pfizer lab.
https://www.pharmatimes.com/news/pfizer_to_build_r_and_d_facility_in_wuhan,_china_984211
but...but...no...says snopes..
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-glaxo-own-the-wuhan-lab/
You have virtually unpacked the truth in one post
Perhaps.
It is certainly worth investigating an issue with the potential to kill us all next time.
Linked below is a video containing a very a very comprehensive discussion of the topic, however even it does not address the fact that the research is for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry. I would encourage everyone to watch it whether you like the parties involved or not.
This link begins at at the mid point of discussion, at the crux of the issue in my opinion. Feel free to watch the entire thing.
"Looking for a gas leak with a lighted match"
https://youtu.be/FEh5JyZC218?t=2207
I agree. When I refer to a Wuhan lab implicit in that is in cooperation with "the science" in this country. It seems to.me that a lot of folks too intelligent to believe in God sure enjoy playing god.
Because they are culpable! Don’t forget there was a (supposed?) 3 year moratorium on GoF research that the NIH lifted in 2017.
Imagine a company or companies being responsible for the most deadly man made environmental disaster ever seen by humanity. Imagine those companies being the largest sponsor of our media watchdogs. Imagine them also being the largest contributors to politicians, Democrat and Republicans. Imagine this disaster causing the entire world to slip into a recession, and causing commerce and education to be completely shut down for two years. Imagine the world being isolated at home watching on television the very programming that is primarily supported by that industry. Keyword is "programming".
Now imagine those same companies being hired to clean up the mess that they have made, and doing so in a manner that itself injures additional parties.
Now imagine these companies sending you a bill amounting to billions of dollars for their haphazard cleanup work. Imagine our government having the audacity to pay that bill, with the money of the victims.
You have summed the situation up very accurately.
It went beyond free speech when it effectively shut down legitimate scientific discourse from (now over 900,000) scientists and clinicians. That should scare the shit out of everybody.
Wow, I absolutely agree with Elon's take on this, and have been hoping that Substack would be the beginning of the new Fourth Estate, The reason Biden and his cabinet are successfully doing so many destructive and unethical things is because they can. The media, that was supposed to be the final check on the three pillars is actually rooting them on. Hopefully, what started for me by finding Bari, Matt, Glenn, Sasha, Saager and Krystal (all of who have likely voted totally differently than me in ever one of the past several decades) is that our government is not functioning the way it has for over 200 years, and is in serious danger of crashing. Free Speech has to be protected, and Media needs to be credible.
I can't even believe what an amazing experience that had to be for you, Nellie, Suzi, Matt and everyone.
Now, tell us how they've controlled the COVID messaging and the Green religion!
I'm a fan of all of those same writers but I'm going to have to look up one of them. I would recommend adding Michael Shellenberger (here on Substack) and Kim Iverson (on YouTube and soon to be on Rumble too) to your list too.
I do Shellenberger, but Iverson is new.
To be honest, I joined Twitter a month ago and have trouble keeping up with my paid Substack subscriptions because I've been immersed in Twitter. I follow them all there.
Sasha Stone and Glenn were commenting frequently during the five Twitter File dumps.
But the return of the satire account is a nice benefit.
I think humor is an underrated bedrock of civil society.
What is humor again?
An allergy most Democrats suffer from.
Agreed!
THANK YOU, Ms, Weiss, for your hard work at Twitter.
"Musk barging into the Twitter Tower on Market Street and turning over the tables. But I’m not sure anyone should have that kind of power."
Well then maybe instead we accept that the left collective created by the corrupt education system and infesting the media and big tech has power to influence elections where their puppet leaders like Joe Biden have all the power and we lie to ourselves that this is just democracy and fair elections.
At some point we have to rely on and rally behind the single heroes of freedom to save us and fight the Dunning-Kruger effect. We should never let the pursuit of attainable character perfection be the enemy of the good. Musk's character is 100000% times better for civilization than is the cabal of corporatist power seeking to destroy him. Don't get sucked into that maw of media manufactured groupthink against him.
If not Musk now, who or what? Considering the DOJ and the feds are totally corrupt [see Twitter exposure alone]? Get real; Musk IS the only choice AND what he did opening up ALL to Barri et al--just first dibs publish on Twitter.... Good to be skeptical Barri--but get real; for now NO choice but Musk....watch him as much as you want...and if he goes bad, tell us
The FBI is filled top to bottom with rock ribbed lifetime conservatives, mostly Vets, who take Duty, Honor, Country as their guiding values.
That the MAGA crowd has decided that they are irredeemably corrupt just shows the level of their debasement.
I would have agreed with you until recently. The FBI saved the life of a man I worked with who had been kidnapped so I was predisposed to giving them a a lot of credit. When we saw them faking a FISA warrant (see Clinesmith) to spy on Carter Page was strike one. The FBI working with Twitter to oppress US citizens' speech is strike 2 and 3. If these bedrock patriots are there, they need to start whistleblowing everywhere. The organization is clearly corrupt and that has nothing to do with MAGA.
"left collective created by the corrupt education system and infesting the media"
"puppet leaders like Joe Biden have all the power and we lie to ourselves that this is just democracy and fair elections."
" cabal of corporatist power seeking to destroy him. Don't get sucked into that maw of media manufactured groupthink against him."
100% propaganda with words designed to rally hate and negate thinking. Read some Orwell and learn how to clean up your language to speak and communicate clearly. I recommend starting with "Politics and The English Language"
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/
“…with words designed to rally hate and negate thinking.”
What thinking person in the U.S. cannot see that the entire education system (one example) has been not only terribly degraded but corrupted by the power concentrated in teacher’s and administrative unions? More money funneled down the hopper of “Big Education” is not the solution. Same with health care.
If you mean K-12 education I agree that it is a mess and needs major reform. The Teachers Unions are no doubt part of the problem, but so are meddlesome politicians and even parents who want to decide what other people’s children should be allowed to learn.
“left collective created by the corrupt education system and infesting the media"
Is just a nonsensical and pointlessly inflammatory that conflates problem with solutions. I guess it is easier than thinking though.
However, the United States university education system is the envy of the world and all the wealthy people send their children here for education.
We are the best in the world by any reasonable measure: Nobel prizes, scientific discoveries, engineering advances, billionaires, leaders in other companies, etc.
It is true that over time, as the Conservative movement has retreated from the values of scientific discovery and reason that highly educated people have tended to move away from it. But it’s not because science has changed.
Go ahead and respond like you are programmed to do: call me a racist, misogynist, homophobic, semi-fascist, irredeemable deplorable. And then lecture me on how to not be divisive in rhetoric.
You are none of those things that you seem to think I that should ascribe to you.
You are however a lazy thinker and writer who instead of making a point, parrots ready made emotional rhetoric instead of ideas.
Next time just say “liberal man bad” and you will save us all the time of reading your drivel.
I will quote Orwell at length here because it is apparent that you are unwilling to consider reading him:
“ Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. I will come back to this presently, and I hope that by that time the meaning of what I have said here will have become clearer. Meanwhile, here are five specimens of the English language as it is now habitually written.”
“ All the ‘best people’ from the gentlemen's clubs, and all the frantic fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror at the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoise to chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the crisis.”
“ In (4), the writer knows more or less what he wants to say, but an accumulation of stale phrases chokes him like tea leaves blocking a sink. In (5), words and meaning have almost parted company. People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning — they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another — but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying. A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. The will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear”
Rallying hate and pointing out hate are two different things. Assuming you are not a bot, I suspect you know the difference. Projection is not your strong suit.
Pointing out hate can rally hate. If you call people enough of those words, TERF for example, you dehumanize them, and feel less guilty about being violent toward them. Maybe you even feel justified.
Please see my Orwell quote above or better yet read the essay yourself. It is short enough and should be understandable by almost any reader.
It is kind of amusing to me that you think a bot would bother analyzing Orwell at length.
Thank you!
Bari, you are such a gift to this country. The work you (and a handful of others) are doing to fight for a rigorous, honest, free press is essential to the survival of the American republic. Keep up the good fight.
Hear! Hear!
“Honest, dogged, independent journalism.” This Twitter story reflects your stated mission, Bari.
Elon Musk invited you, trusted you, to dig into Twitter archives and report what you, and others, found there. You have reported those damning facts; but you didn’t stop there. You’re also expressing curiosity, perhaps even a degree of skepticism, about Elon - his motives and objectives. In other words, you’re looking at all sides of this huge story instead of allowing yourself to go all in for the guy who invited you behind the curtain. Such journalistic curiosity and objectivity is what I somewhat naively continue to hold out hope for. The Free Press delivers. Thank you!
Interesting comment, Mark. I find Musk's invitation to Weiss to 'investigate' the 'old' Twitter manipulative. And I find Weiss's deep dive into it all as naive. I think she's being played. Musk is using her to establish credibility and conservative bona fides. Weiss accepts an invitation (as you rightly said) from someone that she might have to report hard truths about. Does that not strike you as being compromised?
In my view to maintain HER own credibility, Bari should have refused the offer and dug into the stuff the hard way.
Just sayin'.
You are more cynical than I.
Yes, Bari raises some good questions about Musk, which I am sure he has either read before it was published or after.
"You’re also expressing curiosity, perhaps even a degree of skepticism, about Elon"
Or maybe a tinge of fear and jealously directed at a rival platform
Nah. For any such rivalry to exist, the platforms would have to be similar in content and approach. Twitter and The Free Press are not remotely similar.
They are similar in that they both need to attract eyeballs. I'm willing to bet that traffic on this site has dropped since Musk took over Twitter.
I am almost assured otherwise. It’s tremendous free publicity. I just signed up to support the important work that they are doing.
Hear hear!!
Awesome work from you and the rest of the journalists leading the charge with this! It's still super encouraging to see Musk put all the information into the hands of capable, independent writers who care about honesty! Can't wait to read more!
The only real journalists remaining
Elon Musk is a hero. It is really as simple as that.
I hope all his accomplishments aren't destroyed in the process. I want him to be even more successful. He's different.
I think he is bipolar and in a manic phase, but that’s just my unprofessional opinion.
Are his actions heroic? That’s not an easy question to answer but given his wealth and stature I would have to say no. A real hero is someone like a combat medic or dissident reporter, who has to overcome fear of life or death consequences and risks all to follow their values.
Musk is untouchable and he knows it. Losing $44B would be uncomfortable but he would still be a billionaire many times over.
He’s just another rich man throwing his wealth around to attract attention.
U think it was all his $44B and no investors?
U think this was entirely altruistic and there’s no financial gains to be made here?
U don’t think Twitter’s attempt at e-commerce isn’t something to consider?
U think he’s really manic and just throwing money around to attract attention?
Strange, albeit myopic, vantage point.
Or just unprofessional opinions, like u said.
He will presumably have to reimburse his investors or maybe not, in which case he has even less skin in the game.
I see that you don’t like my opinion, what is yours? Do you think he is “heroic”?
Reimburse his investors?? Ur killing me.
Heroic? Hardly.
Way smarter than u and me and 99% of the planet ?
Obviously yes.
He is definitely smart and successful. And he might even make money on this deal.
If I were you I would sell Tesla stock, if you own any. Musk has strayed into a messy place, and he knows it.
Ur comments are killing me. Just sayin.
There’s plenty to be concerned about.
Free speech is a very important component of a functioning Republic.
I think unintentionally (though maybe not), the Twitter files project, may be more than any other before it, has uncovered the necrotic, decomposing body of the corporate media. This isn't simply because of the yeoman's work the team has done to uncover the facts, but rather because of the media's response to Bari, Taibbi, et al.
It's easy for the corporate press to dismiss people like Ben Shapiro because after all, he's one of "them" (Conservative, not Jewish, of course). But when the likes of Bari and Taibbi come along who have true, though somewhat heterodox, liberal bona fides, the media have a choice...they can listen, think and evaluate, or they can implement the No True Scotsman fallacy.
No TRUE liberal would do propaganda for the richest man on earth, therefore, they can be ignored as well because they are Right Wingers just like Shapiro and the rest of the far-right, nazi loving, white supremacists.
Corporate Media is dead and stinks to high heaven...they just don't realize it yet.
https://www.gordoncomstock.com/
Yes, the corporate media empire is dying a slow death.
Which I am enjoying watching.
Corporate media has always served their wealthy masters. The news is that more people are finally realizing it.
Fox News is just as corporate and corrupt as the New York Times.
I have to agree with Musk. Reinstating the Babylon Bee was only worth $43 billion, not $44.
I did a deep dive into tech companies performance prior to investing and Twitter stood out as complete outlier on the low side. I have kept up with it and periodically posted about it.
Twitter stock IPO'd around $42 and stayed there for 10 years. It crept up and back a few times. Compare that to other tech companies that grew 3x to 10x in that time. Twitter never made money. A few positive quarters, but mostly lost money. Revenues grew very slowly, but costs grew faster. Again, compare that to the revenues of Amazon, Google, Facebook (not to mention some of their subsidiaries who outdid Twitter by miles - WhatsApp, Youtube, Instagram, etc. Total monthly users at Twitter were stuck at 300MM while many sites grew to over 1B. Twitter has been sliding down the rankings of users and is now at 22 among social media sites. There was virtually zero innovation in making the product better. Increasing the number of characters was about it. Musk has already done more innovation and promised much more. It seems most of the people in Twitter were developing tools to censor and/or running around like chicken littles personally trying to censor. Using mostly Twitter data (which, over the years, Twitter made less available) they had about 66MM daily active users in the US. When you subtracted out their estimates on bots at the time, businesses, almost all of whom are on Twitter, including hundreds of accounts for larger ones, duplicate estimates (lot of Pierre Delectos and Carlos Dangers out there), government agencies - federal, state, local), charitable organizations, etc, and you get down to somewhere between 600K and 3MM actual people tweeting every day. Less than 1% of the country. Twitter is not the real world.
I worked for a fortune 5 company, and had to lead some large government contracts at times. I thought I knew bureaucracy, TLA spewers (three letter acronyms), and dysfunctional decision making. One of the biggest takeaways from the Twitter files outside of the actual news put out by these reporters is just the sheer dysfunction within Twitter, the number of teams - half of whom did not really seem to know why they existed-, the horrible "decision by committee" that routinely got kicked up to executive levels, and of course the group think that it took to come to some of their conclusions. Stunning. Musk was right to lay waste to the structure. By the way, I liked how he did it. First top down (it was easy to see and calculate how many people you actually needed), and then bottom up with his "work hard or leave" ultimatum, where people self selected out.
👍👍 comments.
Good old hard core analytics of the data.
Bravo !
Is the reason there was no TGIF because Nellie was working in this story?
Please free Nellie to write TGIF for tomorrow. It’s a major reason why I subscribe.
Yep, an alarming number of us live for our weekly Nellie fix. TGIF forever.
I think Bari posted TGIF would be back this week (tomorrow)